Hate crime and other Wikipedia pages

Criticism of Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about criticism of the doctrines and practices of Christianity. For negative attitudes towards Christians, see Anti-Christian sentiment.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd


Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]








Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]










Theology[show]

















History ·
 Tradition
 [show]
















Related topics[show]














Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]





























Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Criticism of Christianity varies from the criticism of Christian beliefs, teachings, history, activities, and terrorism. Throughout the history of Christianity, many have criticized Christianity, the church, Jesus, Christian Bible, Christians and other elements of Christianity.
The formal response of Christians to such criticisms is described as Christian apologetics. Several areas of criticism also include the claims of scripture itself, the ethics of biblical interpretations that have been used historically to justify certain attitudes and behaviors, the question of the religion's compatibility with science, and other Christian doctrines. The criticism came from the various religious and non-religious groups around the world, some of whom were themselves Christians.


Contents  [hide]
1 Scripture 1.1 Biblical criticism
1.2 Judaic view: Unfulfilled prophecy
1.3 Selective interpretation
1.4 Textual corruption
1.5 Mistranslation 1.5.1 Translation of Almah as Virgin
1.5.2 Prophecy of the Nazarene

2 Miracles
3 Ethics 3.1 Colonialism
3.2 Slavery
3.3 Christianity and women
3.4 Christianity and politics
3.5 Christianity and violence
4 Science
5 Doctrine 5.1 Incarnation
5.2 Hell and damnation
5.3 Idolatry
5.4 Limbo
5.5 Atonement
5.6 Second Coming
5.7 Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife
6 Criticism of Christians 6.1 Christian right 6.1.1 United States
6.2 Hypocrisy
6.3 Materialism
6.4 Sectarianism
6.5 Persecution by Christians
6.6 Response of apologists
6.7 Anti-clericalism in Nazi Germany
7 Criticism by other religions 7.1 Hinduism
7.2 Judaism
7.3 Islam
8 Origins
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading 11.1 Skeptical of Christianity
11.2 Defending Christianity
12 External links 12.1 General
12.2 Skeptical
12.3 From other religions
12.4 Apologetic
12.5 Debates


Scripture[edit]
See also: Criticism of the Bible
Biblical criticism[edit]
See also: Biblical criticism, The Bible and History and Internal consistency and the Bible
Biblical criticism, in particular higher criticism, covers a variety of methods used since the Enlightenment in the early 18th century as scholars began to apply to biblical documents the same methods and perspectives which had already been applied to other literary and philosophical texts.[1] It is an umbrella term covering various techniques used mainly by mainline and liberal Christian theologians to study the meaning of biblical passages. It uses general historical principles, and is based primarily on reason rather than revelation or faith. There are four primary types of biblical criticism:[2]
Form criticism: an analysis of literary documents, particularly the Bible, to discover earlier oral traditions (stories, legends, myths, etc.) upon which they were based.
Tradition criticism: an analysis of the Bible, concentrating on how religious traditions grew and changed over the time span during which the text was written.
Higher criticism: the study of the sources and literary methods employed by the biblical authors.[3][2]
Lower criticism: the discipline and study of the actual wording of the Bible; a quest for textual purity and understanding.[3]
Inconsistencies have been pointed out by critics and skeptics,[4] presenting as difficulties the different numbers and names for the same feature and different sequences for what is supposed to be the same event. Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, two source hypothesis (in various guises), and assertions that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous. Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by literalists, considering the texts to be consistent, with the Torah written by a single source,[5][6] but the Gospels by four independent witnesses,[7] and all of the Pauline Epistles, except possibly the Hebrews, as having been written by Paul the Apostle.
While consideration of the context is necessary when studying the Bible, some find the accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus within the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, difficult to reconcile. E. P. Sanders concludes that the inconsistencies make the possibility of a deliberate fraud unlikely: "A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'So did I,' 'The women saw him first,' 'No, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on."[8]
Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe in biblical inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (opposed to accurate).[9] He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately[9] (for example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said).[9] Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.[10]:Art. VIII
Those who believe in the inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible (or inerrant), that is, free from error in the truths it expresses by its character as the word of God.[11] However, the scope of what this encompasses is disputed, as the term includes 'faith and practice' positions, with some denominations holding that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[12] Other scholars take stronger views,[13] but for a few verses these positions require more exegetical work, leading to dispute (compare the serious debate over the related issue of perspicuity, attracting biblical and philosophical discussion).
Infallibility refers to the original texts of the Bible, and all mainstream scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation; yet, through use textual criticism modern (critical) copies are considered to "faithfully represent the original",[10]:Art. X and our understanding of the original language sufficiently well for accurate translation. The opposing view is that there is too much corruption, or translation too difficult, to agree with modern texts.
Judaic view: Unfulfilled prophecy[edit]



 God reveals himself to Abraham in scripture and he is seen here with three angels. By Giovanni Battista Tiepolo.
Hundreds of years before the time of Jesus, Jewish prophets promised that a messiah would come. Judaism claims that Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies. Other skeptics usually claim that the prophecies are either vague or unfulfilled,[14] or that the Old Testament writings influenced the composition of New Testament narratives.[15] Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, which they argue are nearly impossible to fulfill by chance.[16] Many Christians anticipate the Second Coming of Jesus, when he will fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy, such as the Last Judgment, the general resurrection, establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the Messianic Age (see the article on Preterism for contrasting Christian views).
The New Testament traces Jesus' line to that of David; however, according to Stephen L. Harris:[17]
Jesus did not accomplish what Israel's prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf. Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God's ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a "shameful" death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel's savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus' crucifixion a "stumbling block" to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)
Christian preachers counter this argument by stating that these prophecies will be fulfilled by Jesus in the Millennial Reign after the Great Tribulation, according to New Testament prophecies, especially in the Book of Revelation.
The 16th-century Jewish theologian Isaac ben Abraham, who lived in Trakai, Lithuania, penned a work called Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened) that attempted to refute the ideas that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and that Christianity was the "New Covenant" of God. He systematically identified a number of inconsistencies in the New Testament, contradictions between the New Testament and the Old Testament, and Old Testament prophesies which remained unfulfilled in Jesus' lifetime. In addition, he questioned a number of Christian practices, such as Sunday Sabbath.[18] Written originally for Jews to persuade them not to convert to Christianity,[19] the work was eventually read by Christians. While the well-known Christian Hebraist Johann Christoph Wagenseil attempted an elaborate refutation of Abraham's arguments, Wagenseil's Latin translation of it only increased interest in the work and inspired later Christian freethinkers. Chizzuk Emunah was praised as a masterpiece by Voltaire.[18]
On the other hand, Blaise Pascal believed that "[t]he prophecies are the strongest proof of Jesus Christ". He wrote that Jesus was foretold, and that the prophecies came from a succession of people over a span of four thousand years.[20] Apologist Josh McDowell defends the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy as supporting Christianity, arguing that prophecies fulfilled by Christ include ones relating to his ancestral line, birthplace, virgin birth, miracles, manner of death, and resurrection. He says that even the timing of the Messiah in years and in relation to events is predicted, and that the Jewish Talmud (not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, see also Rejection of Jesus) laments that the Messiah had not appeared despite the scepter being taken away from Judah.[21]
Selective interpretation[edit]
See also: Expounding of the Law, Biblical law in Christianity and Cafeteria Christianity
Critics argue that the selective invocation of portions of the Old Testament is hypocritical, particularly when those portions endorse hostility towards women and homosexuals, when other portions are considered obsolete. The entire Mosaic Law is described in Galatians 3:24-25 as a tutor which is no longer necessary, according to some interpretations, see also Antinomianism in the New Testament.
On the other hand, many of the Old Testament laws are seen as specifically abrogated by the New Testament, such as circumcision,[22] though this may simply be a parallel to Jewish Noahide Laws. See also Split of early Christianity and Judaism. On the other hand, other passages are pro-Law, such as Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." See also Pauline passages opposing antinomianism.
There are a number of positions which are taken in response to these critics:
Some argue that the specific principles invoked by Christians are endorsed or renewed in the New Testament.[23]
Others argue that the Old Testament law applies, except as modified by the New Testament.[24]
Textual corruption[edit]
See also: Biblical criticism and Textual criticism
Within the abundance of biblical manuscripts exist a number of textual variants. The vast majority of these textual variants are the inconsequential misspelling of words, word order variations[25] and the mistranscription of abbreviations.[26] Text critics such as Bart D. Ehrman have proposed that some of these textual variants and interpolations were theologically motivated.[27] Ehrman's conclusions and textual variant choices have been challenged by reviewers, including Daniel B. Wallace, Craig Blomberg and Thomas Howe.[28]
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as probably not original. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses being left out or marked as not original. These possible later additions include the following:[29][30]
The ending of Mark[Mk. 16]
The story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae
An explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum
Most Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas which have disputed source documents. Bible Commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail.
In The Text Of The New Testament, Kurt and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[31] They concluded, "Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected… In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater."[31]
With the discovery of the Hebrew Bible texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, questions have been raised about the textual accuracy of the Masoretic text. That is, whether the Masoretic text which forms the basis of most modern English translations of the Old Testament, or translations which pre-date the masoretic text, such as the Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and Samaritan Pentateuch are more accurate.[citation needed]
Mistranslation[edit]
See also: Bible errata, Bible translations and English translations of the Bible
Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy[10] states that inerrancy applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.
Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of inconsistencies arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text. Some Christian interpretations are criticized for reflecting specific doctrinal bias[32] or a variant reading between the Masoretic Hebrew and Septuagint Greek manuscripts often quoted in the New Testament.
Translation of Almah as Virgin[edit]
Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." As early as the 2nd century CE, Jewish critics have argued that Christians were mistaken in their reading of the word almah ("עלמה") in Isaiah 7:14.[33] Jewish translations of the verse from Isaiah read: "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel." Moreover, it is claimed that Christians have taken this verse out of context (see Immanuel for further information).[32]
Christians claim that the reference to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 refers to a virgin birth, but critics claim otherwise.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)
The Greek text of Matthew 1:23 uses the term "parthenos", which is the usual Greek word for virgin:
"ιδού η παρθένος εν γαστρί έξει και τέξεται υιόν και καλέσουσιν το όνομα αυτού Εμμανουήλ ο έστιν μεθερμηνευόμενος μεθ' ημών ο Θεός". (Matthew 1:23 Textus Receptus)[34]
The (right-to-left) Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah:
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. 14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)[35]
The Jewish translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek that was in use during the 1st century, the Septuagint, uses the word "parthenos" ("virgin") in Isaiah 7:14 rather than the usual Greek word "neanis" for "young woman".[36] The Septuagint's Greek term παρθένος (parthenos) is considered by many to be an inexact rendering of the Hebrew word `almah in the text of Isaiah, but only in light of the Masoretic Canon which was finalized nearly 1000 years after the Septuagint.[37]
Some scholars contend that debates over the precise meaning of bethulah ("בתולה"-virgin) and almah (young woman) are misguided because no Hebrew word encapsulates the idea of certain virginity.[38] Martin Luther also argued that the debate was irrelevant, not because the words do not clearly mean virgin, but because almah and bethulah were functional synonyms.[39]
(For more information, see the articles on the Virgin birth of Jesus and Isaiah 7:14.)
Prophecy of the Nazarene[edit]
Another example is Nazarene in Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." The website for Jews for Judaism claims that "Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was fabricated."[32][40] However, one common suggestion is that the New Testament verse is based on a passage relating to Nazirites, either because this was a misunderstanding common at the time, or through deliberate re-reading of the term by the early Christians. Another suggestion is "that Matthew was playing on the similarity of the Hebrew word nezer (translated 'Branch' or 'shoot' in Isaiah 11:1 and Jeremiah 23:5) with the Greek nazoraios, here translated 'Nazarene.'"[41] Christians also suggest that by using an indirect quotation and the plural term prophets, "Matthew was only saying that by living in Nazareth, Jesus was fulfilling the many Old Testament prophecies that He would be despised and rejected."[42] The background for this is illustrated by Philip's initial response in John 1:46 to the idea that Jesus might be the Messiah: "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?"[41]
Miracles[edit]
Further information: Miracle, Faith healing and Exorcism
Philosopher David Hume argued against the plausibility of miracles:[43]


1) A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature;
 2) We know these laws through repeated and constant experience;
 3) The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws;
 4) Consequently no one can rationally believe in miracles.
Hume's argument against the plausibility of miracles produced by humans is answered by Jesus' own admission of the human impossibility of miracles, which are acts of God that are "impossible for men", but "with God all things are possible". (Matthew 19:26)
The Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church reject Hume's argument against miracles outright with the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, who postulated that Reason alone was not sufficient to understand God's energies (activities such as miracles) and essence, but faith was.[44]
Miraculous healings through prayers, often involving the "laying on of hands", have been reported. However, reliance on faith healing alone can indirectly contribute to serious harm and even death.[45] Christian apologists including C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible.[46][47][48]
Ethics[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain interpretations of some moral decisions in the Bible are considered ethically questionable by many modern groups. Some of the passages most commonly criticized include colonialism, the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, condemnation of homosexuality, and support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments.
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the ethics of Christianity. See Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche#Christianity and morality.
Colonialism[edit]
Main article: Christianity and colonialism
Christianity and colonialism are often closely associated because Catholicism, Russian Orthodoxy and Protestantism were the religions of the European colonial powers[49] and acted in many ways as the "religious arm" of those powers.[50] Initially, Christian missionaries were portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery". However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century, missionaries became viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.”[51]
Christianity is targeted by critics of colonialism because the tenets of the religion were used to justify the actions of the colonists.[52] For example, Michael Wood asserts that the indigenous peoples were not considered to be human beings and that the colonisers was shaped by "centuries of Ethnocentrism, and Christian monotheism, which espoused one truth, one time and version of reality."[53]
Slavery[edit]
Main article: Christianity and slavery
Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.[54] The early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize that the institution of slavery existed.
The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle, who frequently referred to himself as a "Slave of Christ", perhaps implying that he was a slave and Jesus was his master, although it may have just been an expression. Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery. Conversely, he taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly.[Eph. 6:5-8] At the same time, he taught slave owners to treat their slaves fairly. The entire Epistle to Philemon is devoted to Onesimus, a runaway slave and convert whom Paul returns to his master, to be seen as "not just a slave, but much more than a slave; he is a dear brother in Christ".[Philemon 16] Tradition describes Pope Pius I (term c. 158-167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217-222) as former slaves.[55]
Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has been subjected to significant internal conflict and has endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery, within specific biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. The key verse used to justify slavery was Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." which was interpreted to mean that Africans were the descendants of Ham, cursed with "the mark of Ham" to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (Europeans) and Shem (Asians).[54] In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it.[56] That changed in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V instituted the hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as "enemies of Christ."[57]
Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[58] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[59] These authors point out that Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheaded abolitionism, and many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by their Christian faith and a desire to realize their view that all people are equal under God.[60] In the late 17th century, anabaptists began to criticize slavery. Criticisms from the Society of Friends, Mennonites, and the Amish followed suit. Prominent among these Christian abolitionists were William Wilberforce, and John Woolman. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her famous book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, according to her Christian beliefs in 1852. Earlier, in Britain and America, Quakers were active in abolitionism. A group of Quakers founded the first English abolitionist organization, and a Quaker petition brought the issue before government that same year. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the way for the campaign. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was instrumental in starting abolitionism as a popular movement.[61]
Many modern Christians are united in the condemnation of slavery as wrong and contrary to God's will. Only peripheral groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other Christian hate groups on the racist fringes of the Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity movements advocate the reinstitution of slavery.[54] Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[62][63][64] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[54][56]
In addition to aiding[dubious – discuss] abolitionism, many Christians made further efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[65] The African American Review notes the important role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[66] Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.[67]
Christianity and women[edit]
See also: Women in Christianity and Women in the Bible



Joan of Arc led battles in the fight to free France from England. She believed that God had commanded her to do so. Upon capture, she was tried for heresy by an English court and burned at the stake. She is now a saint venerated in the Roman Catholic Church.[68]
Many feminists have accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centered stories in the Bible of contributing to a patriarchy.[69] Though many women disciples and servants are recorded in the Pauline epistles, there have been occasions in which women have been denigrated and forced into a second-class status.[70] For example, women were told to keep silent in the churches for "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church".[1 Cor. 14:34-35] Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in The Woman's Bible that "the Bible in its teachings degrades women from Genesis to Revelation".[71]
Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such as Tertullian, Augustine, and John Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition.[72] Until the latter part of the 20th century, only the names of very few women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years were widely known: Mary, the mother of Jesus;[73] Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus and the first witness to the resurrection; and Mary and Martha, the sisters who offered him hospitality in Bethany.[74]
Harvard scholar Karen King writes that more of the many women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years are becoming known. Further, she concludes that for centuries in Western Christianity, Mary Magdalene has been wrongly identified as the adulteress and repentant prostitute presented in John 8—a connection supposed by tradition but nowhere claimed in the New Testament. According to King, the Gospel of Mary shows that she was an influential figure, a prominent disciple and leader of one wing of the early Christian movement that promoted women's leadership.
King claims that every sect within early Christianity which had advocated women's prominence in ancient Christianity was eventually declared heretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed.[74]
Classicist Evelyn Stagg and New Testament scholar Frank Stagg in their jointly authored book, Woman in the World of Jesus, document very unfavorable attitudes toward women that prevailed in the world into which Jesus came. They assert that there is no recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman. They interpret the recorded treatment and attitude Jesus showed to women as evidence that the Founder of Christianity treated women with great dignity and respect.[75] Various theologians have concluded that the canonical examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women. They are seen as showing repeatedly and consistently how he liberated and affirmed women.[76] However, Schalom Ben-Chorin argues that Jesus' reply to his mother in John 2:4 during the wedding at Cana amounted to a blatant violation of the commandment to honor one's parent.[Ex. 20:12] [77] He mistakenly assumes Jesus' response to be an offensive statement, when in all actuality, the term "woman" was used to show respect in the Hebrew cultures. Also, Christ was an adult at the time, thirty years of age. He had the biblical right to refuse a command by his mother, and he did so stating that he was doing his Father's (God's) business.
There are three major viewpoints within modern Christianity over the role of women. They are known respectively as Christian feminism, Christian egalitarianism and complementarianism.
Christian feminists take an actively feminist position from a Christian perspective.[78]
Christian egalitarians advocate ability-based, rather than gender-based, ministry of Christians of all ages, ethnicities and socio-economic classes.[79] Egalitarians support the ordination of women and equal roles in marriage, but are theologically and morally more conservative than Christian feminists and prefer to avoid the label "feminist". A limited notion of gender complementarity is held by some, known as "complementarity without hierarchy".[80]
Complementarians support both equality and beneficial differences between men and women.[81] They believe the Bible teaches that men and women have distinct complementary roles in both marriage and in the church. They maintain that men have a responsibility to lead and women have a responsibility to submit to the leadership of men.
Some Christians argue that the idea of God as a man is based less on gender but rather on the dominant Patriarchal society of the time in which men acted as leaders and caretakers of the Family.[82] Thus, the idea of God being "The Father" is with regards to his relationship with what are "his children", Christians.
Most mainline Christians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God should be called Father and not called Mother, in the same way that Jesus was a man and was not a woman.[83] Jesus tells His followers to address God as Father.[Mt. 6:9-13] He tells his disciples to be merciful as their heavenly Father is merciful.[Lk. 6:36] He says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask[Lk. 11:13] and that the Spirit of their Father will speak through them in times of persecution.[Mt. 10:20] On Easter Sunday, he directs Mary Magdalene to tell the other disciples, "I am going to my Father and your Father...."[Jn. 20:17] Mark Brumley points out that behind New Testament language of Divine Adoption and regeneration is the idea that God is our Father because He is the "source" or "origin" of our new life in Christ. He has saved us through Christ and sanctified us in the Spirit. Brumley claims this is clearly more than a metaphor; the analogy with earthly fatherhood is obvious. God is not merely like a father for Christ’s followers; he is really their Father. Among Christians who hold to this idea, there is a distinct sense that Jesus' treatment of women should imply equality in leadership and marital roles every bit as strongly as the definite male gender of Jesus should imply a name of Father for God. Rather than as antifeminist, they characterize alternative naming as unnecessary and unsupported by the words found in the Bible.[83]
In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to revise its "Baptist Faith and Message" (Statement of Faith),[84] opposing women as pastors. While this decision is not binding and would not prevent women from serving as pastors, the revision itself has been criticized by some from within the convention. In the same document, the Southern Baptist Convention took a strong position of the subordinating view of woman in marriage: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband. She has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."[84] (Emphasis added)
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow female clergy. The Chaldean Catholic Church on the other hand continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses serving alongside male deacons during mass.[85]
In some evangelical churches, it is forbidden for women to become pastors, deacons or church elders. In support of such prohibitions, the verse 1 Timothy 2:12 is often cited:[86]
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
Christianity and politics[edit]
Main article: Christianity and politics
See also: Christian left, Christian right and Religion and politics
Some leftists and libertarians, including Christians who disavow the Religious Right, use the term Christian fascism or Christofascism to describe what some see as an emerging neoconservative proto-fascism or Evangelical nationalism and possible theocratic sentiment in the United States.[87]
Reverend Rich Lang of the Trinity United Methodist Church of Seattle gave a sermon titled "George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism", in which he said, "I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied."[88]
Christianity and violence[edit]
Main article: Christianity and violence
See also: Christian terrorism and Crusades
Many critics of Christianity have cited the violent acts of Christian nations as a reason to denounce the religion. Science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said that he could not forgive religions for the atrocities and wars over time.[89] Richard Dawkins makes a similar case in his book, The God Delusion. In The Dawkins Delusion?, Alister McGrath responds to Dawkins by suggesting that, far from endorsing "out-group hostility", Jesus commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation". McGrath agrees that it is necessary to critique religion, but says that Dawkins seems unaware that it possesses internal means of reform and renewal. While Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to Jesus' standard of acceptance, it is there at the heart of the Christian ethic.[90]
Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching.[91] However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified.[92] Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, biblical passages have been used to justify the use of force against heretics,[93] sinners[94] and external enemies.[95] Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisitions, Crusades, wars of religion and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[96] To this list, J. Denny Weaver adds, "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child', justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men". Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism".[97]
Although some Christians have relied on Christian teaching to justify their use of force, other[which?] Christians have opposed the use of force and violence. Some[which?] of the latter have formed sects that have emphasized pacificism as a central tenet of their faith.[citation needed] Christians have also engaged in violence against those that they classify as heretics and non-believers. In Letter to a Christian Nation, critic of religion Sam Harris writes that "...faith inspires violence in at least two ways. First, people often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it... Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation..."[98]
Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and love of enemies. Weaver says that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism".[97] Others point out sayings and acts of Jesus that do not fit this description: the absence of any censure of the soldier who asks Jesus to heal his servant, his overturning the tables and chasing the moneychangers from the temple with a rope in his hand, and through his Apostles, baptising a Roman Centurion who is never asked to first give up arms.[99]
Science[edit]

Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2013)
See also: Science and the Bible and Relationship between religion and science
During the 19th century an interpretive model of the relationship between religion and science known today as the conflict theory developed, according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to hostility and conflict. A popular example was the misconception 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 spherical. This thesis was a popular historiographical approach during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but most contemporary historians of science now reject it.[100][101][102]
The notion of a war between science and religion remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[103] Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research.[104] The framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent in popular culture.[105]
The astronomer Carl Sagan, mentioned 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 Cosmos: 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."[106] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in this story, it has been exaggerated and has 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".[107] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media.
Numerous scientists have criticized Christian fundamentalism and creationism as inherently unscientific and incompatible with modern understanding of evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology.[108][109]



 Medieval scholars sought to understand the geometric and harmonic principles by which God created the universe.[110]
Doctrine[edit]
Incarnation[edit]
Main article: Incarnation (Christianity)
The earliest objections to incarnation come from Celsus and Porphyry.[citation needed] Celsus found it hard to reconcile Christian human God who was born and matured with his Jewish God who was supposed to be one and unchanging. He asked "if God wanted to reform humanity, why did he choose to descend and live on earth? How his brief presence in Jerusalem could benefit all the millions of people who lived elsewhere in the world or who had lived and died before his incarnation?"[111]
One classical response is Lewis's trilemma, a syllogism popularised by C. S. Lewis that intended to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of both holding Jesus of Nazareth to be a "great moral teacher" while also denying his divinity. The logical soundness of this trilemma has been widely questioned.[112]
Hell and damnation[edit]
See also: Problem of Hell and Hell in Christianity



Adam and Eve being driven from Eden due to original sin, portrayed by Gustave Doré.
Christianity has been criticized as seeking to persuade people into accepting its authority through simple fear of punishment or, conversely, through hope of reward after death, rather than through rational argumentation or empirical evidence.[113] Traditional Christian doctrine dictates that, without faith in Jesus Christ or in the Christian faith in general, one is subject to eternal punishment in Hell.[114]
Critics regard the eternal punishment of those who fail to adopt Christian faith as morally objectionable, and consider it an abhorrent picture of the nature of the world. On a similar theme objections are made against the perceived injustice of punishing a person for all eternity for a temporal crime. Some Christians agree (see Annihilationism and Trinitarian Universalism). These beliefs have been considered especially repugnant[115] when the claimed omnipotent God makes, or allows a person to come into existence, with a nature that desires that which God finds objectionable.[116]
In the Abrahamic religions, Hell has traditionally been regarded as a punishment for wrongdoing or sin in this life, as a manifestation of divine justice. As in the problem of evil, some apologists argue that the torments of Hell are attributable not to a defect in God's benevolence, but in human free will. Although a benevolent God would prefer to see everyone saved, he would also allow humans to control their own destinies. This view opens the possibility of seeing Hell not as retributive punishment, but rather as an option that God allows, so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be. C. S. Lewis most famously proposed this view in his book The Great Divorce, saying: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"
Hell is not seen as strictly a matter of retributive justice even by the more traditionalist churches. For example, the Eastern Orthodox see it as a condition brought about by, and the natural consequence of, free rejection of God's love.[117] The Roman Catholic Church teaches that hell is a place of punishment[118] brought about by a person's self exclusion from communion with God.[119] In some ancient Eastern Orthodox traditions, Hell and Heaven are distinguished not spatially, but by the relation of a person to God's love.
Some modern critics of the doctrine of Hell (such as Marilyn McCord Adams) claim that, even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as humans the awesome responsibility of their eternal destinies.[120] Jonathan Kvanvig, in his book, The Problem of Hell, agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances. For instance, one should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made while depressed or careless. On Kvanvig's view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God, but God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated.[121]
Idolatry[edit]
Despite Christians usually alleges different religions to be idolatrous, they have been pointed out by number of notable people to have been engaged in idolatry, the common practices of Christians that have been regarded as idolatry contains the use of images of Jesus, Mary, Saints, etc.[122]
Limbo[edit]
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that baptism is a necessity. In the 5th century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell.[123] By the 13th century, theologians referred to the "limbo of infants" as a place where unbaptized babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know of that which they were deprived, and moreover enjoyed perfect natural happiness. The 1983 Code of Canon Law (1183 §2) specifies that "Children whose parents had intended to have them baptized but who died before baptism, may be allowed church funeral rites by the local ordinary".[124] In 2007, the 30-member International Theological Commission revisited the concept of limbo.[125][126] However, the commission also said that hopefulness was not the same as certainty about the destiny of such infants.[125] Rather, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."[127] Hope in the mercy of God is not the same as certainty through the sacraments, but it is not without result, as demonstrated in Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:42-43.
The concept of limbo is not accepted by the Orthodox Church or by Protestants.[128]
Atonement[edit]
The idea of atonement for sin is criticized by Richard Dawkins on the grounds that the image of God as requiring the suffering and death of Jesus to effect reconciliation with humankind is immoral. The view is summarized by Dawkins: "if God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who is God trying to impress?"[129] Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. He goes on to say that the atonement was necessary because of our flawed human nature, which made it impossible for us to save ourselves, and that it expresses God's love for us by removing the sin that stands in the way of our reconciliation with God.[130] Responding to the criticism that he is "ignorant" of theology, Dawkins asks, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"[131] and "[y]es, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject."[132] Dinesh D'Souza says that Dawkins' criticism "only makes sense if you assume Christians made the whole thing up." He goes on to say that Christians view it as a beautiful sacrifice, and that "through the extremity of Golgotha, Christ reconciles divine justice and divine mercy."[133] Andrew Wilson argues that Dawkins misses the point of the atonement, which has nothing to do with masochism, but is based on the concepts of holiness, sin and grace.[134]
Robert Green Ingersoll suggests that the concept of the atonement is simply an extension of the Mosaic tradition of blood sacrifice and "is the enemy of morality".[135][136] The death of Jesus Christ represents the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices; the resulting mechanism of atonement by proxy through that final sacrifice has appeal as a more convenient and much less costly approach to redemption than repeated animal sacrifice—a common sense solution to the problem of reinterpreting ancient religious approaches based on sacrifice.
The prominent Christian apologist Josh McDowell, in More Than A Carpenter, addresses the issue through an analogy of a real-life judge in California who was forced to fine his daughter $100 for speeding, but then came down, took off his robe, and paid the fine for her from his billfold,[137] though as in this and other cases, illustrations are only cautiously intended to describe certain aspects of the atonement.[138]
Second Coming[edit]
Main article: Second Coming
Several verses in the New Testament appear to contain Jesus' predictions that the Second Coming would take place within a century following his death.[139] Jesus appears to promise for his followers the second coming to happen before the generation he is preaching to vanishes. This is seen as an essential failure in the teachings of Christ by many critics such as Bertrand Russell.[140]
However, Preterists argue that Jesus did not mean his second coming[Matt. 16:28] but speaks about demonstrations of his might, formulating this as "coming in his kingdom", especially the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple 70 AD, which he foretold, and by which time not all of his disciples were still living.[141] According to this view Matthew 10:23 should be understood in the same way.[142]
Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife[edit]
See also: Afterlife § Christianity
Most Christian traditions teach belief in life after death as a central and indispensable tenet of their faith. Critics argue that the Christian conception of the afterlife is inconsistent with that described in the Old Testament. George E. Mendenhall believes there is no concept of immortality or life after death in the Old Testament.[143] The presumption is that the deceased are inert, lifeless, and engaging in no activity.[143] However, two men, Enoch and Elijah, are taken into the afterlife without ever experiencing death.
The idea of Sheol ("שׁאול") or a state of nothingness was shared among Babylonian and Israelite beliefs. "Sheol, as it was called by the ancient Israelites, is the land of no return, lying below the cosmic ocean, to which all, the mighty and the weak, travel in the ghostly form they assume after death, known as Raphraim. There the dead have no experience of either joy or pain, perceiving no light, feeling no movement."[144] Obayashi alludes that the Israelites were satisfied with such a shadowy realm of afterlife because they were more deeply concerned with survival.[144]
Before Christianity began in the 1st century, the belief in an afterlife was already prevalent in Jewish thinking[145] among the Pharisees[146][147] and Essenes.[148] The themes of unity and sheol which largely shaped the ancient tradition of Judaism had been undermined when only the most pious of Jews were being massacred during the Maccabean revolt.

Criticism of Christians[edit]
See also: Anti-Christian sentiment
Christian right[edit]
Conservative Christians are often accused of being intolerant by secular humanists and liberal Christians, claiming that they oppose science that seems to contradict scripture (Creationism, use of birth control, research into embryonic stem cells, etc.), liberal democracy (separation of church and state), and progressive social policies (rights of people of other races and religions, of women, and of people with different sexual orientations).[149][150][151][152]
United States[edit]
Gallup polling shows that within the US, trust in organized religion has declined since the 70's.[153] Phil Zuckerman, a sociology professor, argues that political campaigning against same-sex marriage in churches “is turning off so many people from Christianity,” and responsible for a decline in the number of Christians in the United States.[154]
David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Institute, and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project published a study of attitudes of 16- to 29-year-old Americans towards Christianity. They found that about 38% of all those who were not regular churchgoers had negative impressions of Christianity, and especially evangelical Christianity, associating it with conservative political activism, hypocrisy, anti-homosexuality, authoritarianism, and judgmentalism.[155] About 17% had "very bad" perceptions of Christianity.[156][157][158]
Hypocrisy[edit]



 Protestant Christian dominated KKK hinting at violence toward Jews and Catholics. Illustration by Rev. Branford Clarke from Heroes of the Fiery Cross 1928 by Bishop Alma White published by the Pillar of Fire Church in Zarephath, NJ.
Gaudium et spes claims that the example of Christians may be a contributory factor to atheism, writing, "…believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."[159]
Secular and religious critics have accused many Christians of being hypocritical.[160] Tom Whiteman, a Philadelphia psychologist found that the primary reasons for Christian divorce include adultery, abuse (including substance, physical and verbal abuse), and abandonment whereas the number one reason cited for divorce in the general population was incompatibility.[161]
Materialism[edit]


Instead of understanding and following the teachings of Jesus, the Christians argued and quarreled about the nature of Jesus’s divinity and about the Trinity. They called each other heretics and persecuted each other and cut each other’s heads off. There was a great and violent controversy at one time among different Christian sects over a certain diphthong. One party said that the word Homo-ousion should be used in a prayer; the other wanted Homoi-ousion-this difference had reference to the divinity of Jesus. Over this diphthong fierce war was raged and large numbers of people were slaughtered.
— Jawaharlal Nehru[162][163]


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time.
— Mahatma Gandhi[164]
Sectarianism[edit]
Main articles: Sectarianism and Christian denomination
Some have argued that Christianity is undermined by the inability of Christians to agree on matters of faith and church governance, and the tendency for the content of their faith to be determined by regional or political factors. Schopenhauer sarcastically suggested:
To the South German ecclesiastic the truth of the Catholic dogma is quite obvious, to the North German, the Protestant. If then, these convictions are based on objective reasons, the reasons must be climatic, and thrive, like plants, some only here, some only there. The convictions of those who are thus locally convinced are taken on trust and believed by the masses everywhere.[165]
Christians respond that Ecumenism has helped bring together such communities, where in the past mistranslations of Christological Greek terms may have resulted in seemingly different views. Non-denominational Christianity represents another approach towards reducing the divisions within Christianity, although many Christian groups claiming to be non-denominational wind up with similar problems.
Persecution by Christians[edit]
Main articles: Christian debate on persecution and toleration and Christianity and violence
Individuals and groups throughout history have been persecuted by certain Christians (and Christian groups) based upon sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion (even within the bounds of Christianity itself). Many of the persecutors attempted to justify their actions with particular scriptural interpretations. During Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, important Christian theologians advocated religious persecution to varying degrees.[citation needed] However, Early modern Europe witnessed a turning point in the Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension".[166]
Early Christianity was a minority religion in the Roman Empire and the early Christians were themselves persecuted during that time. After Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already under the reign of Constantine I, Christian heretics had been persecuted; beginning in the late 4th century AD also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed. In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[167]
After the decline of the Roman Empire, the further Christianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful.[168] However, encounters between Christians and Pagans were sometimes confrontational, and some Christian kings (Charlemagne, Olaf I of Norway) were known for their violence against pagans. In the late Middle Ages, the appearance of the Cathars and Bogomils in Europe laid the stage for the later witch-hunts. These (probably gnostic-influenced) sects were seen as heretics by the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition was established to counter them.
After the Protestant Reformation, the devastation caused by the partly religiously motivated wars (Thirty Years' War, English Civil War, French Wars of Religion) in Europe in the 17th century gave rise to the ideas of Religious toleration, Freedom of religion and Religious pluralism.
Response of apologists[edit]
Christians will sometimes point out that in their points of view, the wrongdoings of other Christians are not the fault of their religious scriptures but of those who have wrongly interpreted it. They posit that the mistakes of Christians do not refute the validity of their teachings, but merely proves their weakness and sinful nature, of which they then turn to Christ. Thus, according to them, the "Word of God" can still be true and valid without it having been accurately followed.[citation needed] According to Ron Sider, an Evangelical theologian, "The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 5:17, 1 Cor 10:13). The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending."[169]
Similar arguments are held by Roman Catholics against critics of the Catholic Church, or by other Christians defending their respective Churches.[citation needed] of the Church's structure. Roman Catholics will argue that Popes who were corrupt in the Middle Ages is not the fault of the position of the Papacy or of the fact that there are obedient Priests lower in the hierarchy, but the fault of the individual people who act as "God's representative on Earth". Such examples can be seen in Dante's Divine Comedy, where Roman Catholic Clergy who had practiced simony find themselves in the lower circles of hell.
Anti-clericalism in Nazi Germany[edit]
Main articles: Anti-clericalism and Religion in Nazi Germany



Adolf Hitler established the Protestant Reich Church and suppressed dissenting Confessing Churches.[170][171]


Joseph Goebbels, as the Reich Minister of Propaganda worked to implement Kirchenkampf (church struggle), limiting the power of independent churches. He wrote that there was "an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[170]
Adolf Hitler's 1920 Nazi Party Platform promoted Positive Christianity - which mixed ideas of racial purity and Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity, and removed "Jewish" elements.[172][173]
Nazism aimed to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances.[174] Under the Gleichschaltung process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by the Confessing Church. Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate political catholicism. Amid harassment of the Church, the Reich concordat treaty with the Vatican was signed in 1933, and promised to respect Church autonomy. Hitler routinely disregarded the Concordat, closing all Catholic institutions whose functions were not strictly religious. Clergy, nuns, and lay leaders were targeted, with thousands of arrests over the ensuing years.[175]
Hitler was supportive of Christianity in public, yet hostile to it in private. Anti-clericalists like Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann saw the conflict with the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-church and anti-clerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[170] Hitler was born to a practising Catholic mother and an anticlerical father, but after leaving home Hitler never again attended Mass or received the sacraments. According to biographer Alan Bullock, Hitler retained some regard for the organisational power of Catholicism but held private contempt for its central teachings, which he said, if taken to their conclusion, "would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.":[171]
Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda used his position to widely publicise trials of clergy and nuns in his propaganda campaigns, showing the cases in the worst possible light. In 1928, soon after his election to the Reichstag, Goebbels wrote in his diary that National Socialism was a "religion" that needed a genius to uproot "outmoded religious practices" and put new ones in their place: "One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel."[176] As the war progressed, on the "Church Question", he wrote "after the war it has to be generally solved... There is, namely, an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[170]
Hitler's chosen deputy and private secretary, Martin Bormann, was a rigid guardian of National Socialist orthodoxy and saw Christianity and Nazism as "incompatible" (mainly because of its Jewish origins),[175][177] as did the official Nazi philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg. In his "Myth of the Twentieth Century" (1930), Rosenberg wrote that the main enemies of the Germans were the "Russian Tartars" and "Semites" - with "Semites" including Christians, especially the Catholic Church.[178]
According to Bullock, Hitler considered the Protestant clergy to be "insignificant" and "submissive" and lacking in a religion to be taken seriously.[179] Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from 28 separate regional churches through Gleichschaltung. His bid to create a unified Reich Church ultimately failed, and Hitler became disinterested in supporting the so-called "German Christians" Nazi aligned movement. Hitler initially lent support to Ludwig Muller, a Nazi and former naval chaplain, to serve as Reich Bishop, but his heretical views against Paul the Apostle and the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible (see Positive Christianity) quickly alienated sections of the Protestant church. Lutheran Pastor Martin Neimoller created the Confessing Church movement to oppose the Nazification of protestant churches.[180] Neimoller was arrested by the Gestapo in 1937, and sent to the concentration camps.[181] The Confessing Church seminary was prohibited that same year.[182]
Criticism by other religions[edit]
Hinduism[edit]



 Statue of Raja Ram Mohan Roy at College Green, Bristol, UK.
Ram Mohan Roy criticized Christian doctrines, and asserted that how "unreasonable" and "self-contradictory" they are.[183] He further adds that people, even from India were embracing Christianity due to the economic hardship and weakness, just like European Jews were pressured to embrace Christianity, by both encouragement and force.[184]
Vivekananda regarded Christianity as "..collection of little bits of Indian thought. Ours is the religion of which Buddhism with all its greatness is a rebel child, and of which Christianity is a very patchy imitation."[185]
Philosopher Dayanand Saraswati, regarded Christianity as "barbarous religion, and a 'false religion' religion believed only by fools and by the people in a state of barbarism,"[186] he included that Bible contains many stories and precepts that are immoral, praising cruelty, deceit and encouraging sin.[187]
Highly acclaimed Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, writes :-

Unfortunately Christian religion inherited the Semitic creed of the ‘jealous God’ in the view of Christ as ‘the only begotten son of God’ so could not brook any rival near the throne. When Europe accepted the Christian religion, in spite of its own broad humanism, it accepted the fierce intolerance which is the natural result of belief in 'the truth once for all delivered to the saints.'[188]
Judaism[edit]
See also: Talmud



Moshe Halbertal in 2009.
Shlomo ben Aderet criticized Christianity, adding that it has lesser form of monotheism, and lacks a unified deity compared to Judaism.[189]
David Flusser viewed Christianity as "Cheaper Judaism" and highly anti-judaism, he also highlighted the "failure of christianity to convert the Jewish people to the new message" as "precisely the reason for the strong anti-jewish trend in christianity."[190]
Professor Moshe Halbertal, regards Christianity to be "idolatrous religion," and he further adds that the idolatry by Christians "opened the door to the easing of many other restrictive prohibitions."[191]
Stephen Samuel Wise in his own words was critical towards Christian community, for their failure to rescue Jews, from Europe, during Nazi rule. He wrote that:-

A Christian world that will permit millions of Jews to be slain without moving heaven by prayer and earth in every human way to save its Jews has lost its capacity for moral and spiritual survival.[192]
Islam[edit]
Islam's prophet Muhammad said that Christians had to follow one God, but they have made multiple, he said:-

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God.[193]
Muslim scholars have criticized Christianity, usually for its Trinity concept. They argue that this doctrine is an invention, distortion of the idea about God, and presentation of the idea that there are three gods.[194]
Origins[edit]
See also: Historicity of Jesus, Christ myth theory and Christianity and Paganism
Some have argued that Christianity is not founded on a historical Jesus, but rather on a mythical creation.[195] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of Hellenistic mystery cults that acknowledged the non-historic nature of their deity using it instead as a teaching device.[196] Author Brian Branston has argued that Christianity adopted many mythological tales and traditions into its views of Jesus. According to Branston these traditions, largely from Greco-Roman religions, have parallels to the story of Jesus.[197] However, the position that Jesus was not a historical figure is essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship.[198]
Scholars and historians such as James H. Charlesworth caution against using parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the Hellenistic culture to conclude that Jesus is a purely legendary figure. Charlesworth argues that "it would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules and Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events…"[199]
See also[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of Christianity
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Protestantism
Antireligion
Antitheism
Biblical cosmology
Biblical literalism
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Christianity and multiculturalism
Criticism of Jesus
Christ myth theory
Internal consistency of the Bible
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Browning, W.R.F. "Biblical criticism." A Dictionary of the Bible. 1997 Encyclopedia.com. 8 Apr. 2010
2.^ Jump up to: a b Robinson, B.A. Biblical Criticism, including Form Criticism, Tradition Criticism, Higher Criticism, etc. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008. Web: 8 Apr 2010.
3.^ Jump up to: a b Mather, G.A. & L.A. Nichols, Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult, Zondervan (1993) (quoted in Robinson, Biblical Criticism
4.Jump up ^ See for example the list of alleged contradictions from The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Robert G. Ingersoll's article Inspiration Of Bible.
5.Jump up ^ M.W.J. Phelan. The Inspiration of the Pentateuch, Two-edged Sword Publications (March 9, 2005) ISBN 978-0-9547205-6-8
6.Jump up ^ Ronald D. Witherup, Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, Liturgical Press (2001), page 26.
7.Jump up ^ France, R.T., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England (1985), pg. 17.
8.Jump up ^ Britannica Encyclopedia, Jesus Christ, p.17
9.^ Jump up to: a b c Lindsell, Harold. "The Battle for the Bible", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA (1976), pg. 38.
10.^ Jump up to: a b c Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
11.Jump up ^ As in 2 Timothy 3:16, discussed by Thompson, Mark (2006). A Clear and Present Word. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: Apollos. p. 92. ISBN 1-84474-140-0.
12.Jump up ^ Norman L. Geisler, William E. Nix (2012), From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible, Moody Publishers, p. PT45, ISBN 978-0802483928 "faith and practice"
13.Jump up ^ See notably Grudem, representative of recent scholarship with this emphasis (Grudem, Wayne (1994). Systematic Theology. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. pp. 90–105. ISBN 978-0-85110-652-6.).
14.Jump up ^ Till, Farrell (1991). "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled". Internet Infidels. Retrieved 2007-01-16.
15.Jump up ^ W. H. Bellinger; William Reuben Farmer, eds. (1998). Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Trinity Press. ISBN 9781563382307. Retrieved 2 August 2013. "Did Jesus of Nazareth live and die without the teaching about the righteous Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 having exerted any significant influence on his ministry? Is it probable that this text exerted no significant influence upon Jesus' understanding of the plan of God to save the nations that the prophet Isaiah sets forth?" —Two questions addressed in a conference on "Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins" at Baylor University in the fall of 1995, the principal papers of which are available in "Jesus and the Suffering Servant."
16.Jump up ^ Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks, Moody Pr, 1958, ISBN 0-8024-7630-9
17.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L. (2002). did not accomplish%22 Understanding the Bible (6 ed.). McGraw-Hill College. pp. 376–377. ISBN 9780767429160. Retrieved 2 August 2013. (Further snippets of quote: B C D)
18.^ Jump up to: a b Biography of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki
19.Jump up ^ Chizzuk Emunah, TorahLab Store
20.Jump up ^ Pascal, Blaise (1958). Pensees. Translator W. F. Trotter. chapter x, xii, xiii.
21.Jump up ^ McDowell, Josh (1999). "chapter 8". The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson. ISBN 9781850785521.
22.Jump up ^ See, for example, the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15
23.Jump up ^ For instance "What's wrong with being gay?" at ChristianAnswers.net argues that the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality are renewed in the New Testament
24.Jump up ^ For example, Theonomy: What it is; What it is not
25.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger, cited in The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
26.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins. p. 91. ISBN 9780060738174. Retrieved 2 August 2013.
27.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1993
28.Jump up ^ Wallace, Daniel B. "The Gospel According to Bart: A Review Article of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2006 (also available at Bible.org) Craig L. Blomberg, "Review of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," Denver Seminary, February 2006
Howe, Thomas (2006). "A Response To Bart D_ Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus". International Society of Christian Apologetics. p. PDF download. Retrieved 31 July 2013.
29.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). Whose Word Is It?. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8264-9129-4. p. 166
30.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger "A Textual Commentary on the New Testament", Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society
31.^ Jump up to: a b K. Aland and B. Aland, "The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions & To The Theory & Practice Of Modern Text Criticism", 1995, op. cit., p. 29-30.
32.^ Jump up to: a b c "English Handbook Page 34 999KB" (PDF).
33.Jump up ^ Dialogue of Trypho Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, LXIII
34.Jump up ^ Matthew 1:23 compare multiple versions and languages
35.Jump up ^ Interlinear Hebrew in English order
36.Jump up ^ The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
37.Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Virgin Birth of Christ
38.Jump up ^ Charles D. Isbell, Biblical Archaeological Review, June 1977, "Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary’s Virginity?"
39.Jump up ^ Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in Luther's Works, vol. 45: The Christian in Society II, ed. H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962).
40.Jump up ^ See also "Given the New Testament a Chance?" from the Messiah Truth website
41.^ Jump up to: a b David Sper, Managing Editor, "Questions Skeptics Ask About Messianic Prophecies," RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI, 1997
42.Jump up ^ See Psalms 22:6-8,22:13; 69:8, 69:20-21; Isaiah 11:1, 49:7, 53:2-3,53:8; Daniel 9:26
43.Jump up ^ Hume, David (2000). "Chapter 10. Of Religion". In Tom L. Beauchamp. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: A Critical Edition. Volume 3 of The Clarendon edition of the works of David Hume (Oxford University Press). p. 86. ISBN 9780198250609. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
44.Jump up ^ *Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, Vol. 1 (ISBN 1-878997-67-X) Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, Vol. 2 (ISBN 187899767X)
45.Jump up ^ Bruce L. Flamm, MD (2004). "Inherent Dangers of Faith-Healing Studies". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.
46.Jump up ^ "Are Miracles Logically Impossible?". Come Reason Ministries, Convincing Christianity. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
47.Jump up ^ ""Miracles are not possible," some claim. Is this true?". ChristianAnswers.net. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
48.Jump up ^ Paul K. Hoffman. "A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Hume’s "in Principal" Argument Against Miracles" (PDF). Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, Spring, 1999; Copyright ©1999 by Southern Evangelical Seminary. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
49.Jump up ^ Melvin E. Page, Penny M. Sonnenburg (2003). Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 496. "Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale."
50.Jump up ^ Bevans, Steven. "Christian Complicity in Colonialism/ Globalism" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-17. "The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth. This was not all bad — oftentimes missionaries were heroic defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples"
51.Jump up ^ Andrews, Edward (2010). "Christian Missions and Colonial Empires Reconsidered: A Black Evangelist in West Africa, 1766–1816". Journal of Church & State 51 (4): 663–691. doi:10.1093/jcs/csp090. "Historians have traditionally looked at Christian missionaries in one of two ways. The first church historians to catalogue missionary history provided hagiographic descriptions of their trials, successes, and sometimes even martyrdom. Missionaries were thus visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, an era marked by civil rights movements, anti-colonialism, and growing secularization, missionaries were viewed quite differently. Instead of godly martyrs, historians now described missionaries as arrogant and rapacious imperialists. Christianity became not a saving grace but a monolithic and aggressive force that missionaries imposed upon defiant natives. Indeed, missionaries were now understood as important agents in the ever-expanding nation-state, or “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them."
52.Jump up ^ Meador, Jake. "Cosmetic Christianity and the Problem of Colonialism – Responding to Brian McLaren". Retrieved 17 November 2010. "According to Jake Meador, "some Christians have tried to make sense of post-colonial Christianity by renouncing practically everything about the Christianity of the colonizers. They reason that if the colonialists’ understanding of Christianity could be used to justify rape, murder, theft, and empire then their understanding of Christianity is completely wrong."
53.Jump up ^ Conquistadors, Michael Wood, p. 20, BBC Publications, 2000
54.^ Jump up to: a b c d Robinson, B. A. (2006). "Christianity and slavery". Retrieved 2007-01-03.
55.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia Slavery and Christianity
56.^ Jump up to: a b Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News (Associated Press). Retrieved 28 October 2014.
57.Jump up ^ Jack D. Forbes (1993), Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples, University of Illinois Press, p. 27, ISBN 978-0252063213
58.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery ISBN 978-0-691-11436-1 (2003)
59.Jump up ^ Lamin Sanneh, Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa, Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0-674-00718-5 (2001)
60.Jump up ^ Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
61.Jump up ^ "Abolitionist Movement". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
62.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
63.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
64.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
65.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
66.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
67.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
68.Jump up ^ Thurston, Herbert. St. Joan of Arc. 1910. Catholic Encyclopedia
69.Jump up ^ Feminist philosophy of religion
70.Jump up ^ "The Status Of Women In The Old Testament".
71.Jump up ^ The Woman's Bible
72.Jump up ^ Clark, Elizabeth. Women in the Early Church. Liturgical Press, 1984. ISBN 0-8146-5332-4
73.Jump up ^ Jesus' Family Tree
74.^ Jump up to: a b "King, Karen L. "Women in Ancient Christianity: the New Discoveries." Karen L. King is Professor of New Testament Studies and the History of Ancient Christianity at Harvard University in the Divinity School.
75.Jump up ^ Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. ISBN 0-664-24195-6
76.Jump up ^ Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles (2nd ed.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1989, ISBN 978-0-8010-0885-6. pp. 82–104
77.Jump up ^ Schalom Ben-Chorin.Brother Jesus: the Nazarene through Jewish eyes. U of Georgia Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8203-2256-8, p.66
78.Jump up ^ See "About the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus".
79.Jump up ^ Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
80.Jump up ^ Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (eds.). Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. IVP 2004. p. 17.
81.Jump up ^ Grudem, Wayne A. "Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), 47/2 (June 2004) 299–346
82.Jump up ^ Eck, Diana L. Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras. (2003) p. 98
83.^ Jump up to: a b Brumley, Mark. "Why God is Father and not Mother". The Catholic Faith Magazine. July/August 1999. Accessed 25 Feb 2013
84.^ Jump up to: a b "Baptist Faith and Message"
85.Jump up ^ (non-English) - The second image shows deaconnesses, on August 15th, for the prayers on the day of the Assumption of Mary
86.Jump up ^ The 9 Most Important Issues Facing the Evangelical Church
87.Jump up ^ See, for example, Everybody's Talkin' About Christian Fascism by Gary Leupp.
88.Jump up ^ George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism
89.Jump up ^ Clarke, Arthur C. & Watts, Alan (January), “At the Interface: Technology and Mysticism”, Playboy (Chicago, Ill.: HMH Publishing) 19 (1): 94, ISSN 0032-1478, OCLC 3534353
90.Jump up ^ Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion?, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2007, ISBN 978-0-281-05927-0
91.Jump up ^ Luke 6
92.Jump up ^ Peoples, Dr., Glenn Andrew. "Whittling down the pacifist narrative: Did early Christians serve in the army?". www.rightreason.org. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
93.Jump up ^ 1Kings 18:17-46
94.Jump up ^ Deuteronomy 17:5
95.Jump up ^ Psalm 18:37
96.Jump up ^ International encyclopedia of violence research, Volume 2. Springer. 2003.
97.^ Jump up to: a b J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 28 October 2014. ""[3rd paragraph] I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence." "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing – in war, capital punishment, murder – but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury."
98.Jump up ^ Sam Harris (2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-0-307-26577-7.
99.Jump up ^ War, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, W. E Addis, T. Arnold, Revised T. B Scannell and P. E Hallett, 15th Edition, Virtue & Co, 1953, Nihil Obstat: Reginaldus Philips, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, 2 October 1950, "In the Name of God : Violence and Destruction in the World's Religions", M. Jordan, 2006, p. 40[unreliable source?]
100.Jump up ^ Quotation: "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science." (p. 7), from the essay by Colin A. Russell "The Conflict Thesis" in Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0".
101.Jump up ^ Quotation: "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the "warfare between science and religion" and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science." (p. 195) Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press Chicago, Ill.
102.Jump up ^ Quotation: "In its traditional forms, the [conflict] thesis has been largely discredited." (p. 42) Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
103.Jump up ^ Quotation from Ferngren's introduction at "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.": "…while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind." (p. x)
104.Jump up ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
105.Jump up ^ From Ferngren's introduction:
 "…while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind. (p. x)-Gary Ferngren, (2002); Introduction, p. ix)
106.Jump up ^ Sagan, Carl. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 3: "The Harmony of the Worlds"
107.Jump up ^ quoted in Ted Peters, Science and Religion, Encyclopedia of Religion, p.8182
108.Jump up ^ Petto, Andrew J.; Godfrey, Laurie R. (2007). Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0393050904.
109.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1992). Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton. pp. 432–447. ISBN 039330857X.
110.Jump up ^ The compass in this 13th-century manuscript is a symbol of God's act of Creation.
 * Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Washington, DC: Regenery, 2005), ISBN 0-89526-038-7
111.Jump up ^ Howard W. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers, Indiana University Press, 2003, p. 12
112.Jump up ^ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books (1994) pages 38-39.
113.Jump up ^ "Let no cultured person draw near, none wise and none sensible, for all that kind of thing we count evil; but if any man is ignorant, if any man is wanting in sense and culture, if anybody is a fool, let him come boldly [to become a Christian]. Celsus, AD178
114.Jump up ^ "Since we all inherit Adam's sin, we all deserve eternal damnation. All who die unbaptized, even infants, will go to hell and suffer unending torment. We have no reason to complain of this, since we are all wicked. (In the Confessions, the Saint enumerates the crimes of which he was guilty in the cradle.) But by God's free grace certain people, among those who have been baptized, are chosen to go to heaven; these are the elect. They do not go to heaven because they are good; we are all totally depraved, except insofar as God's grace, which is only bestowed on the elect, enables us to be otherwise. No reason can be given why some are saved and the rest damned; this is due to God's unmotivated choice. Damnation proves God's justice; salvation His mercy. Both equally display His goodness." A history of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster, 1945
115.Jump up ^ Bible Teaching and Religious Practice essay: "Europe and Elsewhere," Mark Twain, 1923)
116.Jump up ^ Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27
117.Jump up ^ What do Orthodox Christians teach about death and when we die?
118.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1035, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 0-89243-565-8,1994-the revised version issued 1997 has no changes in this section
119.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 0-89243-565-8,1994
120.Jump up ^ Richard Beck. "Christ and Horrors, Part 3: Horror Defeat, Universalism, and God's Reputation". Experimental Theology. March 19, 2007.
121.Jump up ^ Jonathan Kvanvig, The Problem of Hell, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-508487-0, 1993
122.Jump up ^ "The Works of Thomas Manton", by Thomas Manton, p. 99
123.Jump up ^ Cultural Anxieties over the Child in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries by William F. MacLehose
124.Jump up ^ Canon Law 1983
125.^ Jump up to: a b CNS STORY: Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'
126.Jump up ^ n:Vatican abolishes Limbo
127.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday. 1994. p. 845. ISBN 0-385-47967-0.
128.Jump up ^ Limbo: Recent statements by the Catholic church; Protestant views on Limbo at Religioustolerance.org
129.Jump up ^ Root of All Evil? (2006) (TV)-Memorable quotes
130.Jump up ^ McGrath, Alister (2004). Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 1-4051-2538-1.
131.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (September 17, 2007). "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
132.Jump up ^ Marianna Krejci-Papa, 2005. "Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrath." Science & Theology News, 2005–04–25.
133.Jump up ^ Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity, Regnery Publishing, ISBN 1-59698-517-8 (2007)
134.Jump up ^ Andrew Wilson, Deluded by Dawkins?, Kingsway Publications, ISBN 978-1-84291-355-0 (2007)
135.Jump up ^ A Biographical Appreciation of Robert Green Ingersoll: Chapter 11
136.Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.
137.Jump up ^ More Than A Carpenter, Tyndale House, Wheaton, Illinois, 1977, ISBN 978-0-8423-4552-1
138.Jump up ^ Jeffery, Steve; Ovey, Michael; Sach, Andrew (2007). Pierced for our transgressions. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. ch. 13. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6.
139.Jump up ^ Most notably, Matthew 10:22-23, 16:27-28, 23:36, 24:29-34, 26:62-64; Mark 9:1, 14:24-30, 14:60-62; and Luke 9:27
140.Jump up ^ In his famous essay Why I Am Not a Christian
141.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, Columbia Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28 - see last 4 paragraphs
142.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion - What is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
143.^ Jump up to: a b From Witchcraft to Justice: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament, George E. Mendenhall.
144.^ Jump up to: a b Hiroshi Obayashi, Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. See Introduction.
145.Jump up ^ Jewish eschatology#Olam Haba - the afterlife and the world to come Jewish eschatology: The afterlife and olam haba
146.Jump up ^ Acts 23:6-8
147.Jump up ^ Pharisees#Pharisaic principles and values Pharisees: Pharisaic Principles and Values
148.Jump up ^ Essenes#Rules, customs, theology and beliefs Essenes: Rules, customs, theology and beliefs
149.Jump up ^ Chip Berlet, "Following the Threads," in Ansell, Amy E. Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, pp. 24, Westview Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8133-3147-1
150.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
151.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
152.Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson, White (1898). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. p. X. Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anaesthetics.
153.Jump up ^ Cathy Lynn Grossman (17 June 2015). "Americans’ confidence in religion hits a new low". Religion News Service.
154.Jump up ^ "U.S. has become notably less Christian, major study finds". LA Times. 12 May 2015.
155.Jump up ^ About 91% of young outsiders felt Christians were anti-homosexual, 87% felt Christians were judgemental and 85% thought Christians were hypocritical.
156.Jump up ^ "Millennials Leave Their Churches Over Science, Lesbian & Gay Issues". Public Religion Research Institute. 10 June 2011.
157.Jump up ^ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-10-10-christians-young_N.htm
158.Jump up ^ "America’s Change of Mind on Same-Sex Marriage and LGBTQ Rights". Barna. 3 Jul 2013.
159.Jump up ^ Gaudium et spes, 19
160.Jump up ^ The Evangelical Scandal – Christianity Today
161.Jump up ^ Marriage 103: The Raw Reality of Divorce and its Terrible Results
162.Jump up ^ In his book "Glimpses of world history", p. 86-87
163.Jump up ^ "Secularism and Hindutva, a Discursive Study", by A. A. Parvathy, p.42
164.Jump up ^ As quoted by William Rees-Mogg 4 April 2005 edition of The Times. Gandhi here makes reference to a statement of Jesus: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13)
165.Jump up ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur; trans. T. Bailey Saunders. "Religion: A Dialogue". The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer.
166.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p. 206.
167.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.22
168.Jump up ^ *Lutz E. von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mitterlalter, Reclam (German), p. 183
169.Jump up ^ The Evangelical Scandal
170.^ Jump up to: a b c d Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.381-382
171.^ Jump up to: a b Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219
172.Jump up ^ William L. Shirer (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. London: Secker & Warburg. pp. 238–39.
173.Jump up ^ Robert Michael; Philip Rosen (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. p. 321.
174.Jump up ^ Ian Kershaw; The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation; 4th Edn; Oxford University Press; New York; 2000"; pp. 173–74
175.^ Jump up to: a b Encyclopedia Britannica Online: Fascism - Identification with Christianity; 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2013
176.Jump up ^ American Experience . The Man Behind Hitler . Transcript | PBS
177.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Martin Bormann; web 25 April 2013
178.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Alfred Rosenberg; web 25 April 2013.
179.Jump up ^ Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219"
180.Jump up ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.295-297
181.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Martin Niemöller; web 24 April 2013
182.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Dietrich Bonhoeffer; web 25 April 2013
183.Jump up ^ "Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Page 166, by Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi, year = 2010
184.Jump up ^ "Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Page 169, by Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi, year = 2010
185.Jump up ^ "Neo-Hindu Views of Christianity", p. 96, by Arvind Sharma, year = 1988
186.Jump up ^ "Gandhi on Pluralism and Communalism", by P. L. John Panicker, p.39, year = 2006
187.Jump up ^ "Dayānanda Sarasvatī, his life and ideas", p. 267, by J. T. F. Jordens
188.Jump up ^ The Philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, by Paul Arthur Schilpp, page = 641
189.Jump up ^ "Judaism and Other Religions", p. 88, publisher = Palgrave Macmillan
190.Jump up ^ Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, by Miriam S. Taylor, p. 41
191.Jump up ^ "Idolatry", by Moshe Halbertal, p. 212
192.Jump up ^ Wise Criticizes Christian World for Failure to Rescue Jews in Nazi Europe 19 February 1943
193.Jump up ^ "Global Civilization: A Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue", by Daisaku Ikeda, Majid Tehranian, p. 36
194.Jump up ^ Christianity: An Introduction, p. 125, by Alister E. McGrath
195.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth theory: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
196.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
197.Jump up ^ Brian Branston, The Lost Gods of England
198.Jump up ^ Historian Michael Grant stated, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." —Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995). "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." —Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Eerdrmans (2004), page 24: "most scholars regard the argument for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response".
199.Jump up ^ Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4880-X.
Further reading[edit]


 This article's further reading may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive, less relevant or many publications with the same point of view; or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations. (August 2013)
Skeptical of Christianity[edit]
A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science, Gryphon Books (1971).
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel Dennett
Civilization and its discontents, by Sigmund Freud
Death and Afterlife, Perspectives of World Religions, by Hiroshi Obayashi
Einstein and Religion, by Max Jammer
From Jesus to Christianity, by L. Michael White
Future of an illusion, by Sigmund Freud
Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Ehrman
Out of my later years and the World as I see it, by Albert Einstein
Russell on Religion, by Louis Greenspan (Includes most all of Russell's essays on religion)
The Antichrist, by Friedrich Nietzsche
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, by Carl Sagan
Understanding the Bible, by Stephen L Harris
Where God and Science Meet [Three Volumes]: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion, by Patrick McNamara
Why I am not a Christian and other essays, by Bertrand Russell
Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus Books, 2008)
The Christian Delusion, edited by John W. Loftus, foreword by Dan Barker (Prometheus Books, 2010)
The End of Christianity, edited by John W. Loftus (Prometheus Books, 2011)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G. A. Wells (Prometheus Books, 1988)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications, 1999)
The encyclopedia of Biblical errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books, 1995)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (Element 1999)
The reason driven life by Robert M. Price (Prometheus Books, 2006)
The case against the case for Christ by Robert M. Price (American atheist press 2010)
God, the failed hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger (Prometheus Books, 2007)
Jesus never existed by Kenneth Humphreys (Iconoclast Press, 2005)
Defending Christianity[edit]
Main article: List of Christian apologetic works
"The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity" by John Warwick Montgomery. An Excerpt from "Evidence for Faith" Chapter 6, Part 2 http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm
"The Infidel Delusion" by Patrick Chan, Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, and Paul Manata http://www.calvindude.com/ebooks/InfidelDelusion.pdf
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, by David Bentley Hart
Dethroning Jesus, by Darrell Bock, Daniel B. Wallace
Jesus Among Other Gods, by Ravi Zacharias
Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis
Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton
Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig
Reinventing Jesus, by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
The Dawkins Letters, by David Robertson
The Reason For God, by Timothy J Keller
External links[edit]


 This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2013)
General[edit]
Professor James Tabor's educational site on the Jewish Roman world of Jesus
Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE
Skeptical[edit]
The Warfare of Science With Theology by Andrew White
New Testament contradictions by Paul Carlson
Christian Anti-Semitism
PBS Special: Apocalypse! Contains Jesus' apocalyptic promises along with those of Saint Paul's.
From other religions[edit]
Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened): English translation of Isaac of Troki's 16th-century Jewish anti-Christian polemic
Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Unhistorical Character of the Gospels
Apologetic[edit]
Reasonable Faith http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer
Probe Ministries
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries http://www.rzim.org/
Stand to Reason http://www.str.org/site/PageServer
Reasons to Believe http://www.reasons.org/
Debates[edit]
"Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier (audio) http://www.philvaz.com/CraigCarrierDebate.mp3
The Great Debate: Does God Exist?-transcript in PDF of a formal debate between presuppositionalist Christian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein.
The Martin-Frame Debate A written debate between skeptic Michael Martin and Christian John Frame about the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
The Drange-Wilson Debate A written debate between skeptic Theodore Drange and Christian Douglas Wilson.
"Is Non-Christian Thought Futile?" A written debate between Christian Doug Jones and skeptics Keith Parsons and Michael Martin in Antithesis magazine (vol. 2, no. 4).
"Is Christianity Good for the World?" A written debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and theologian Douglas Wilson in Christianity Today magazine (web only, May 2007).
God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren Debate between Christian Rick Warren and atheist Sam Harris as reported by Newsweek (April 9, 2007).
"Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off." A video debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and atheists Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor of the Rational Response Squad. Report of the debate posted on the Nightline website. Video of the debate posted on The Way of the Master website.
The Jesseph-Craig Debate: Does God Exist? (1996)-Transcripts of a debate between Christian William Lane Craig and atheist Douglas M. Jesseph.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity











Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.









































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion
































































































































  


Categories: Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of religion






















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Español
Français
한국어
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 June 2015, at 14:55.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity










Criticism of Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about criticism of the doctrines and practices of Christianity. For negative attitudes towards Christians, see Anti-Christian sentiment.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd


Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]








Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]










Theology[show]

















History ·
 Tradition
 [show]
















Related topics[show]














Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]





























Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Criticism of Christianity varies from the criticism of Christian beliefs, teachings, history, activities, and terrorism. Throughout the history of Christianity, many have criticized Christianity, the church, Jesus, Christian Bible, Christians and other elements of Christianity.
The formal response of Christians to such criticisms is described as Christian apologetics. Several areas of criticism also include the claims of scripture itself, the ethics of biblical interpretations that have been used historically to justify certain attitudes and behaviors, the question of the religion's compatibility with science, and other Christian doctrines. The criticism came from the various religious and non-religious groups around the world, some of whom were themselves Christians.


Contents  [hide]
1 Scripture 1.1 Biblical criticism
1.2 Judaic view: Unfulfilled prophecy
1.3 Selective interpretation
1.4 Textual corruption
1.5 Mistranslation 1.5.1 Translation of Almah as Virgin
1.5.2 Prophecy of the Nazarene

2 Miracles
3 Ethics 3.1 Colonialism
3.2 Slavery
3.3 Christianity and women
3.4 Christianity and politics
3.5 Christianity and violence
4 Science
5 Doctrine 5.1 Incarnation
5.2 Hell and damnation
5.3 Idolatry
5.4 Limbo
5.5 Atonement
5.6 Second Coming
5.7 Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife
6 Criticism of Christians 6.1 Christian right 6.1.1 United States
6.2 Hypocrisy
6.3 Materialism
6.4 Sectarianism
6.5 Persecution by Christians
6.6 Response of apologists
6.7 Anti-clericalism in Nazi Germany
7 Criticism by other religions 7.1 Hinduism
7.2 Judaism
7.3 Islam
8 Origins
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading 11.1 Skeptical of Christianity
11.2 Defending Christianity
12 External links 12.1 General
12.2 Skeptical
12.3 From other religions
12.4 Apologetic
12.5 Debates


Scripture[edit]
See also: Criticism of the Bible
Biblical criticism[edit]
See also: Biblical criticism, The Bible and History and Internal consistency and the Bible
Biblical criticism, in particular higher criticism, covers a variety of methods used since the Enlightenment in the early 18th century as scholars began to apply to biblical documents the same methods and perspectives which had already been applied to other literary and philosophical texts.[1] It is an umbrella term covering various techniques used mainly by mainline and liberal Christian theologians to study the meaning of biblical passages. It uses general historical principles, and is based primarily on reason rather than revelation or faith. There are four primary types of biblical criticism:[2]
Form criticism: an analysis of literary documents, particularly the Bible, to discover earlier oral traditions (stories, legends, myths, etc.) upon which they were based.
Tradition criticism: an analysis of the Bible, concentrating on how religious traditions grew and changed over the time span during which the text was written.
Higher criticism: the study of the sources and literary methods employed by the biblical authors.[3][2]
Lower criticism: the discipline and study of the actual wording of the Bible; a quest for textual purity and understanding.[3]
Inconsistencies have been pointed out by critics and skeptics,[4] presenting as difficulties the different numbers and names for the same feature and different sequences for what is supposed to be the same event. Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, two source hypothesis (in various guises), and assertions that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous. Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by literalists, considering the texts to be consistent, with the Torah written by a single source,[5][6] but the Gospels by four independent witnesses,[7] and all of the Pauline Epistles, except possibly the Hebrews, as having been written by Paul the Apostle.
While consideration of the context is necessary when studying the Bible, some find the accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus within the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, difficult to reconcile. E. P. Sanders concludes that the inconsistencies make the possibility of a deliberate fraud unlikely: "A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'So did I,' 'The women saw him first,' 'No, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on."[8]
Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe in biblical inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (opposed to accurate).[9] He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately[9] (for example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said).[9] Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.[10]:Art. VIII
Those who believe in the inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible (or inerrant), that is, free from error in the truths it expresses by its character as the word of God.[11] However, the scope of what this encompasses is disputed, as the term includes 'faith and practice' positions, with some denominations holding that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[12] Other scholars take stronger views,[13] but for a few verses these positions require more exegetical work, leading to dispute (compare the serious debate over the related issue of perspicuity, attracting biblical and philosophical discussion).
Infallibility refers to the original texts of the Bible, and all mainstream scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation; yet, through use textual criticism modern (critical) copies are considered to "faithfully represent the original",[10]:Art. X and our understanding of the original language sufficiently well for accurate translation. The opposing view is that there is too much corruption, or translation too difficult, to agree with modern texts.
Judaic view: Unfulfilled prophecy[edit]



 God reveals himself to Abraham in scripture and he is seen here with three angels. By Giovanni Battista Tiepolo.
Hundreds of years before the time of Jesus, Jewish prophets promised that a messiah would come. Judaism claims that Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies. Other skeptics usually claim that the prophecies are either vague or unfulfilled,[14] or that the Old Testament writings influenced the composition of New Testament narratives.[15] Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, which they argue are nearly impossible to fulfill by chance.[16] Many Christians anticipate the Second Coming of Jesus, when he will fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy, such as the Last Judgment, the general resurrection, establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the Messianic Age (see the article on Preterism for contrasting Christian views).
The New Testament traces Jesus' line to that of David; however, according to Stephen L. Harris:[17]
Jesus did not accomplish what Israel's prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf. Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God's ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a "shameful" death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel's savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus' crucifixion a "stumbling block" to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)
Christian preachers counter this argument by stating that these prophecies will be fulfilled by Jesus in the Millennial Reign after the Great Tribulation, according to New Testament prophecies, especially in the Book of Revelation.
The 16th-century Jewish theologian Isaac ben Abraham, who lived in Trakai, Lithuania, penned a work called Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened) that attempted to refute the ideas that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and that Christianity was the "New Covenant" of God. He systematically identified a number of inconsistencies in the New Testament, contradictions between the New Testament and the Old Testament, and Old Testament prophesies which remained unfulfilled in Jesus' lifetime. In addition, he questioned a number of Christian practices, such as Sunday Sabbath.[18] Written originally for Jews to persuade them not to convert to Christianity,[19] the work was eventually read by Christians. While the well-known Christian Hebraist Johann Christoph Wagenseil attempted an elaborate refutation of Abraham's arguments, Wagenseil's Latin translation of it only increased interest in the work and inspired later Christian freethinkers. Chizzuk Emunah was praised as a masterpiece by Voltaire.[18]
On the other hand, Blaise Pascal believed that "[t]he prophecies are the strongest proof of Jesus Christ". He wrote that Jesus was foretold, and that the prophecies came from a succession of people over a span of four thousand years.[20] Apologist Josh McDowell defends the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy as supporting Christianity, arguing that prophecies fulfilled by Christ include ones relating to his ancestral line, birthplace, virgin birth, miracles, manner of death, and resurrection. He says that even the timing of the Messiah in years and in relation to events is predicted, and that the Jewish Talmud (not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, see also Rejection of Jesus) laments that the Messiah had not appeared despite the scepter being taken away from Judah.[21]
Selective interpretation[edit]
See also: Expounding of the Law, Biblical law in Christianity and Cafeteria Christianity
Critics argue that the selective invocation of portions of the Old Testament is hypocritical, particularly when those portions endorse hostility towards women and homosexuals, when other portions are considered obsolete. The entire Mosaic Law is described in Galatians 3:24-25 as a tutor which is no longer necessary, according to some interpretations, see also Antinomianism in the New Testament.
On the other hand, many of the Old Testament laws are seen as specifically abrogated by the New Testament, such as circumcision,[22] though this may simply be a parallel to Jewish Noahide Laws. See also Split of early Christianity and Judaism. On the other hand, other passages are pro-Law, such as Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." See also Pauline passages opposing antinomianism.
There are a number of positions which are taken in response to these critics:
Some argue that the specific principles invoked by Christians are endorsed or renewed in the New Testament.[23]
Others argue that the Old Testament law applies, except as modified by the New Testament.[24]
Textual corruption[edit]
See also: Biblical criticism and Textual criticism
Within the abundance of biblical manuscripts exist a number of textual variants. The vast majority of these textual variants are the inconsequential misspelling of words, word order variations[25] and the mistranscription of abbreviations.[26] Text critics such as Bart D. Ehrman have proposed that some of these textual variants and interpolations were theologically motivated.[27] Ehrman's conclusions and textual variant choices have been challenged by reviewers, including Daniel B. Wallace, Craig Blomberg and Thomas Howe.[28]
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as probably not original. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses being left out or marked as not original. These possible later additions include the following:[29][30]
The ending of Mark[Mk. 16]
The story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae
An explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum
Most Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas which have disputed source documents. Bible Commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail.
In The Text Of The New Testament, Kurt and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[31] They concluded, "Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected… In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater."[31]
With the discovery of the Hebrew Bible texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, questions have been raised about the textual accuracy of the Masoretic text. That is, whether the Masoretic text which forms the basis of most modern English translations of the Old Testament, or translations which pre-date the masoretic text, such as the Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and Samaritan Pentateuch are more accurate.[citation needed]
Mistranslation[edit]
See also: Bible errata, Bible translations and English translations of the Bible
Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy[10] states that inerrancy applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.
Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of inconsistencies arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text. Some Christian interpretations are criticized for reflecting specific doctrinal bias[32] or a variant reading between the Masoretic Hebrew and Septuagint Greek manuscripts often quoted in the New Testament.
Translation of Almah as Virgin[edit]
Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." As early as the 2nd century CE, Jewish critics have argued that Christians were mistaken in their reading of the word almah ("עלמה") in Isaiah 7:14.[33] Jewish translations of the verse from Isaiah read: "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel." Moreover, it is claimed that Christians have taken this verse out of context (see Immanuel for further information).[32]
Christians claim that the reference to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 refers to a virgin birth, but critics claim otherwise.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)
The Greek text of Matthew 1:23 uses the term "parthenos", which is the usual Greek word for virgin:
"ιδού η παρθένος εν γαστρί έξει και τέξεται υιόν και καλέσουσιν το όνομα αυτού Εμμανουήλ ο έστιν μεθερμηνευόμενος μεθ' ημών ο Θεός". (Matthew 1:23 Textus Receptus)[34]
The (right-to-left) Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah:
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. 14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)[35]
The Jewish translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek that was in use during the 1st century, the Septuagint, uses the word "parthenos" ("virgin") in Isaiah 7:14 rather than the usual Greek word "neanis" for "young woman".[36] The Septuagint's Greek term παρθένος (parthenos) is considered by many to be an inexact rendering of the Hebrew word `almah in the text of Isaiah, but only in light of the Masoretic Canon which was finalized nearly 1000 years after the Septuagint.[37]
Some scholars contend that debates over the precise meaning of bethulah ("בתולה"-virgin) and almah (young woman) are misguided because no Hebrew word encapsulates the idea of certain virginity.[38] Martin Luther also argued that the debate was irrelevant, not because the words do not clearly mean virgin, but because almah and bethulah were functional synonyms.[39]
(For more information, see the articles on the Virgin birth of Jesus and Isaiah 7:14.)
Prophecy of the Nazarene[edit]
Another example is Nazarene in Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." The website for Jews for Judaism claims that "Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was fabricated."[32][40] However, one common suggestion is that the New Testament verse is based on a passage relating to Nazirites, either because this was a misunderstanding common at the time, or through deliberate re-reading of the term by the early Christians. Another suggestion is "that Matthew was playing on the similarity of the Hebrew word nezer (translated 'Branch' or 'shoot' in Isaiah 11:1 and Jeremiah 23:5) with the Greek nazoraios, here translated 'Nazarene.'"[41] Christians also suggest that by using an indirect quotation and the plural term prophets, "Matthew was only saying that by living in Nazareth, Jesus was fulfilling the many Old Testament prophecies that He would be despised and rejected."[42] The background for this is illustrated by Philip's initial response in John 1:46 to the idea that Jesus might be the Messiah: "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?"[41]
Miracles[edit]
Further information: Miracle, Faith healing and Exorcism
Philosopher David Hume argued against the plausibility of miracles:[43]


1) A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature;
 2) We know these laws through repeated and constant experience;
 3) The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws;
 4) Consequently no one can rationally believe in miracles.
Hume's argument against the plausibility of miracles produced by humans is answered by Jesus' own admission of the human impossibility of miracles, which are acts of God that are "impossible for men", but "with God all things are possible". (Matthew 19:26)
The Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church reject Hume's argument against miracles outright with the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, who postulated that Reason alone was not sufficient to understand God's energies (activities such as miracles) and essence, but faith was.[44]
Miraculous healings through prayers, often involving the "laying on of hands", have been reported. However, reliance on faith healing alone can indirectly contribute to serious harm and even death.[45] Christian apologists including C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible.[46][47][48]
Ethics[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain interpretations of some moral decisions in the Bible are considered ethically questionable by many modern groups. Some of the passages most commonly criticized include colonialism, the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, condemnation of homosexuality, and support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments.
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the ethics of Christianity. See Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche#Christianity and morality.
Colonialism[edit]
Main article: Christianity and colonialism
Christianity and colonialism are often closely associated because Catholicism, Russian Orthodoxy and Protestantism were the religions of the European colonial powers[49] and acted in many ways as the "religious arm" of those powers.[50] Initially, Christian missionaries were portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery". However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century, missionaries became viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.”[51]
Christianity is targeted by critics of colonialism because the tenets of the religion were used to justify the actions of the colonists.[52] For example, Michael Wood asserts that the indigenous peoples were not considered to be human beings and that the colonisers was shaped by "centuries of Ethnocentrism, and Christian monotheism, which espoused one truth, one time and version of reality."[53]
Slavery[edit]
Main article: Christianity and slavery
Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.[54] The early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize that the institution of slavery existed.
The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle, who frequently referred to himself as a "Slave of Christ", perhaps implying that he was a slave and Jesus was his master, although it may have just been an expression. Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery. Conversely, he taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly.[Eph. 6:5-8] At the same time, he taught slave owners to treat their slaves fairly. The entire Epistle to Philemon is devoted to Onesimus, a runaway slave and convert whom Paul returns to his master, to be seen as "not just a slave, but much more than a slave; he is a dear brother in Christ".[Philemon 16] Tradition describes Pope Pius I (term c. 158-167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217-222) as former slaves.[55]
Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has been subjected to significant internal conflict and has endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery, within specific biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. The key verse used to justify slavery was Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." which was interpreted to mean that Africans were the descendants of Ham, cursed with "the mark of Ham" to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (Europeans) and Shem (Asians).[54] In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it.[56] That changed in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V instituted the hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as "enemies of Christ."[57]
Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[58] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[59] These authors point out that Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheaded abolitionism, and many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by their Christian faith and a desire to realize their view that all people are equal under God.[60] In the late 17th century, anabaptists began to criticize slavery. Criticisms from the Society of Friends, Mennonites, and the Amish followed suit. Prominent among these Christian abolitionists were William Wilberforce, and John Woolman. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her famous book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, according to her Christian beliefs in 1852. Earlier, in Britain and America, Quakers were active in abolitionism. A group of Quakers founded the first English abolitionist organization, and a Quaker petition brought the issue before government that same year. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the way for the campaign. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was instrumental in starting abolitionism as a popular movement.[61]
Many modern Christians are united in the condemnation of slavery as wrong and contrary to God's will. Only peripheral groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other Christian hate groups on the racist fringes of the Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity movements advocate the reinstitution of slavery.[54] Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[62][63][64] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[54][56]
In addition to aiding[dubious – discuss] abolitionism, many Christians made further efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[65] The African American Review notes the important role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[66] Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.[67]
Christianity and women[edit]
See also: Women in Christianity and Women in the Bible



Joan of Arc led battles in the fight to free France from England. She believed that God had commanded her to do so. Upon capture, she was tried for heresy by an English court and burned at the stake. She is now a saint venerated in the Roman Catholic Church.[68]
Many feminists have accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centered stories in the Bible of contributing to a patriarchy.[69] Though many women disciples and servants are recorded in the Pauline epistles, there have been occasions in which women have been denigrated and forced into a second-class status.[70] For example, women were told to keep silent in the churches for "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church".[1 Cor. 14:34-35] Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in The Woman's Bible that "the Bible in its teachings degrades women from Genesis to Revelation".[71]
Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such as Tertullian, Augustine, and John Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition.[72] Until the latter part of the 20th century, only the names of very few women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years were widely known: Mary, the mother of Jesus;[73] Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus and the first witness to the resurrection; and Mary and Martha, the sisters who offered him hospitality in Bethany.[74]
Harvard scholar Karen King writes that more of the many women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years are becoming known. Further, she concludes that for centuries in Western Christianity, Mary Magdalene has been wrongly identified as the adulteress and repentant prostitute presented in John 8—a connection supposed by tradition but nowhere claimed in the New Testament. According to King, the Gospel of Mary shows that she was an influential figure, a prominent disciple and leader of one wing of the early Christian movement that promoted women's leadership.
King claims that every sect within early Christianity which had advocated women's prominence in ancient Christianity was eventually declared heretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed.[74]
Classicist Evelyn Stagg and New Testament scholar Frank Stagg in their jointly authored book, Woman in the World of Jesus, document very unfavorable attitudes toward women that prevailed in the world into which Jesus came. They assert that there is no recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman. They interpret the recorded treatment and attitude Jesus showed to women as evidence that the Founder of Christianity treated women with great dignity and respect.[75] Various theologians have concluded that the canonical examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women. They are seen as showing repeatedly and consistently how he liberated and affirmed women.[76] However, Schalom Ben-Chorin argues that Jesus' reply to his mother in John 2:4 during the wedding at Cana amounted to a blatant violation of the commandment to honor one's parent.[Ex. 20:12] [77] He mistakenly assumes Jesus' response to be an offensive statement, when in all actuality, the term "woman" was used to show respect in the Hebrew cultures. Also, Christ was an adult at the time, thirty years of age. He had the biblical right to refuse a command by his mother, and he did so stating that he was doing his Father's (God's) business.
There are three major viewpoints within modern Christianity over the role of women. They are known respectively as Christian feminism, Christian egalitarianism and complementarianism.
Christian feminists take an actively feminist position from a Christian perspective.[78]
Christian egalitarians advocate ability-based, rather than gender-based, ministry of Christians of all ages, ethnicities and socio-economic classes.[79] Egalitarians support the ordination of women and equal roles in marriage, but are theologically and morally more conservative than Christian feminists and prefer to avoid the label "feminist". A limited notion of gender complementarity is held by some, known as "complementarity without hierarchy".[80]
Complementarians support both equality and beneficial differences between men and women.[81] They believe the Bible teaches that men and women have distinct complementary roles in both marriage and in the church. They maintain that men have a responsibility to lead and women have a responsibility to submit to the leadership of men.
Some Christians argue that the idea of God as a man is based less on gender but rather on the dominant Patriarchal society of the time in which men acted as leaders and caretakers of the Family.[82] Thus, the idea of God being "The Father" is with regards to his relationship with what are "his children", Christians.
Most mainline Christians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God should be called Father and not called Mother, in the same way that Jesus was a man and was not a woman.[83] Jesus tells His followers to address God as Father.[Mt. 6:9-13] He tells his disciples to be merciful as their heavenly Father is merciful.[Lk. 6:36] He says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask[Lk. 11:13] and that the Spirit of their Father will speak through them in times of persecution.[Mt. 10:20] On Easter Sunday, he directs Mary Magdalene to tell the other disciples, "I am going to my Father and your Father...."[Jn. 20:17] Mark Brumley points out that behind New Testament language of Divine Adoption and regeneration is the idea that God is our Father because He is the "source" or "origin" of our new life in Christ. He has saved us through Christ and sanctified us in the Spirit. Brumley claims this is clearly more than a metaphor; the analogy with earthly fatherhood is obvious. God is not merely like a father for Christ’s followers; he is really their Father. Among Christians who hold to this idea, there is a distinct sense that Jesus' treatment of women should imply equality in leadership and marital roles every bit as strongly as the definite male gender of Jesus should imply a name of Father for God. Rather than as antifeminist, they characterize alternative naming as unnecessary and unsupported by the words found in the Bible.[83]
In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to revise its "Baptist Faith and Message" (Statement of Faith),[84] opposing women as pastors. While this decision is not binding and would not prevent women from serving as pastors, the revision itself has been criticized by some from within the convention. In the same document, the Southern Baptist Convention took a strong position of the subordinating view of woman in marriage: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband. She has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."[84] (Emphasis added)
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow female clergy. The Chaldean Catholic Church on the other hand continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses serving alongside male deacons during mass.[85]
In some evangelical churches, it is forbidden for women to become pastors, deacons or church elders. In support of such prohibitions, the verse 1 Timothy 2:12 is often cited:[86]
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
Christianity and politics[edit]
Main article: Christianity and politics
See also: Christian left, Christian right and Religion and politics
Some leftists and libertarians, including Christians who disavow the Religious Right, use the term Christian fascism or Christofascism to describe what some see as an emerging neoconservative proto-fascism or Evangelical nationalism and possible theocratic sentiment in the United States.[87]
Reverend Rich Lang of the Trinity United Methodist Church of Seattle gave a sermon titled "George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism", in which he said, "I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied."[88]
Christianity and violence[edit]
Main article: Christianity and violence
See also: Christian terrorism and Crusades
Many critics of Christianity have cited the violent acts of Christian nations as a reason to denounce the religion. Science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said that he could not forgive religions for the atrocities and wars over time.[89] Richard Dawkins makes a similar case in his book, The God Delusion. In The Dawkins Delusion?, Alister McGrath responds to Dawkins by suggesting that, far from endorsing "out-group hostility", Jesus commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation". McGrath agrees that it is necessary to critique religion, but says that Dawkins seems unaware that it possesses internal means of reform and renewal. While Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to Jesus' standard of acceptance, it is there at the heart of the Christian ethic.[90]
Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching.[91] However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified.[92] Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, biblical passages have been used to justify the use of force against heretics,[93] sinners[94] and external enemies.[95] Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisitions, Crusades, wars of religion and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[96] To this list, J. Denny Weaver adds, "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child', justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men". Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism".[97]
Although some Christians have relied on Christian teaching to justify their use of force, other[which?] Christians have opposed the use of force and violence. Some[which?] of the latter have formed sects that have emphasized pacificism as a central tenet of their faith.[citation needed] Christians have also engaged in violence against those that they classify as heretics and non-believers. In Letter to a Christian Nation, critic of religion Sam Harris writes that "...faith inspires violence in at least two ways. First, people often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it... Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation..."[98]
Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and love of enemies. Weaver says that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism".[97] Others point out sayings and acts of Jesus that do not fit this description: the absence of any censure of the soldier who asks Jesus to heal his servant, his overturning the tables and chasing the moneychangers from the temple with a rope in his hand, and through his Apostles, baptising a Roman Centurion who is never asked to first give up arms.[99]
Science[edit]

Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2013)
See also: Science and the Bible and Relationship between religion and science
During the 19th century an interpretive model of the relationship between religion and science known today as the conflict theory developed, according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to hostility and conflict. A popular example was the misconception 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 spherical. This thesis was a popular historiographical approach during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but most contemporary historians of science now reject it.[100][101][102]
The notion of a war between science and religion remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[103] Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research.[104] The framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent in popular culture.[105]
The astronomer Carl Sagan, mentioned 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 Cosmos: 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."[106] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in this story, it has been exaggerated and has 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".[107] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media.
Numerous scientists have criticized Christian fundamentalism and creationism as inherently unscientific and incompatible with modern understanding of evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology.[108][109]



 Medieval scholars sought to understand the geometric and harmonic principles by which God created the universe.[110]
Doctrine[edit]
Incarnation[edit]
Main article: Incarnation (Christianity)
The earliest objections to incarnation come from Celsus and Porphyry.[citation needed] Celsus found it hard to reconcile Christian human God who was born and matured with his Jewish God who was supposed to be one and unchanging. He asked "if God wanted to reform humanity, why did he choose to descend and live on earth? How his brief presence in Jerusalem could benefit all the millions of people who lived elsewhere in the world or who had lived and died before his incarnation?"[111]
One classical response is Lewis's trilemma, a syllogism popularised by C. S. Lewis that intended to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of both holding Jesus of Nazareth to be a "great moral teacher" while also denying his divinity. The logical soundness of this trilemma has been widely questioned.[112]
Hell and damnation[edit]
See also: Problem of Hell and Hell in Christianity



Adam and Eve being driven from Eden due to original sin, portrayed by Gustave Doré.
Christianity has been criticized as seeking to persuade people into accepting its authority through simple fear of punishment or, conversely, through hope of reward after death, rather than through rational argumentation or empirical evidence.[113] Traditional Christian doctrine dictates that, without faith in Jesus Christ or in the Christian faith in general, one is subject to eternal punishment in Hell.[114]
Critics regard the eternal punishment of those who fail to adopt Christian faith as morally objectionable, and consider it an abhorrent picture of the nature of the world. On a similar theme objections are made against the perceived injustice of punishing a person for all eternity for a temporal crime. Some Christians agree (see Annihilationism and Trinitarian Universalism). These beliefs have been considered especially repugnant[115] when the claimed omnipotent God makes, or allows a person to come into existence, with a nature that desires that which God finds objectionable.[116]
In the Abrahamic religions, Hell has traditionally been regarded as a punishment for wrongdoing or sin in this life, as a manifestation of divine justice. As in the problem of evil, some apologists argue that the torments of Hell are attributable not to a defect in God's benevolence, but in human free will. Although a benevolent God would prefer to see everyone saved, he would also allow humans to control their own destinies. This view opens the possibility of seeing Hell not as retributive punishment, but rather as an option that God allows, so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be. C. S. Lewis most famously proposed this view in his book The Great Divorce, saying: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"
Hell is not seen as strictly a matter of retributive justice even by the more traditionalist churches. For example, the Eastern Orthodox see it as a condition brought about by, and the natural consequence of, free rejection of God's love.[117] The Roman Catholic Church teaches that hell is a place of punishment[118] brought about by a person's self exclusion from communion with God.[119] In some ancient Eastern Orthodox traditions, Hell and Heaven are distinguished not spatially, but by the relation of a person to God's love.
Some modern critics of the doctrine of Hell (such as Marilyn McCord Adams) claim that, even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as humans the awesome responsibility of their eternal destinies.[120] Jonathan Kvanvig, in his book, The Problem of Hell, agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances. For instance, one should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made while depressed or careless. On Kvanvig's view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God, but God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated.[121]
Idolatry[edit]
Despite Christians usually alleges different religions to be idolatrous, they have been pointed out by number of notable people to have been engaged in idolatry, the common practices of Christians that have been regarded as idolatry contains the use of images of Jesus, Mary, Saints, etc.[122]
Limbo[edit]
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that baptism is a necessity. In the 5th century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell.[123] By the 13th century, theologians referred to the "limbo of infants" as a place where unbaptized babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know of that which they were deprived, and moreover enjoyed perfect natural happiness. The 1983 Code of Canon Law (1183 §2) specifies that "Children whose parents had intended to have them baptized but who died before baptism, may be allowed church funeral rites by the local ordinary".[124] In 2007, the 30-member International Theological Commission revisited the concept of limbo.[125][126] However, the commission also said that hopefulness was not the same as certainty about the destiny of such infants.[125] Rather, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."[127] Hope in the mercy of God is not the same as certainty through the sacraments, but it is not without result, as demonstrated in Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:42-43.
The concept of limbo is not accepted by the Orthodox Church or by Protestants.[128]
Atonement[edit]
The idea of atonement for sin is criticized by Richard Dawkins on the grounds that the image of God as requiring the suffering and death of Jesus to effect reconciliation with humankind is immoral. The view is summarized by Dawkins: "if God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who is God trying to impress?"[129] Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. He goes on to say that the atonement was necessary because of our flawed human nature, which made it impossible for us to save ourselves, and that it expresses God's love for us by removing the sin that stands in the way of our reconciliation with God.[130] Responding to the criticism that he is "ignorant" of theology, Dawkins asks, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"[131] and "[y]es, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject."[132] Dinesh D'Souza says that Dawkins' criticism "only makes sense if you assume Christians made the whole thing up." He goes on to say that Christians view it as a beautiful sacrifice, and that "through the extremity of Golgotha, Christ reconciles divine justice and divine mercy."[133] Andrew Wilson argues that Dawkins misses the point of the atonement, which has nothing to do with masochism, but is based on the concepts of holiness, sin and grace.[134]
Robert Green Ingersoll suggests that the concept of the atonement is simply an extension of the Mosaic tradition of blood sacrifice and "is the enemy of morality".[135][136] The death of Jesus Christ represents the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices; the resulting mechanism of atonement by proxy through that final sacrifice has appeal as a more convenient and much less costly approach to redemption than repeated animal sacrifice—a common sense solution to the problem of reinterpreting ancient religious approaches based on sacrifice.
The prominent Christian apologist Josh McDowell, in More Than A Carpenter, addresses the issue through an analogy of a real-life judge in California who was forced to fine his daughter $100 for speeding, but then came down, took off his robe, and paid the fine for her from his billfold,[137] though as in this and other cases, illustrations are only cautiously intended to describe certain aspects of the atonement.[138]
Second Coming[edit]
Main article: Second Coming
Several verses in the New Testament appear to contain Jesus' predictions that the Second Coming would take place within a century following his death.[139] Jesus appears to promise for his followers the second coming to happen before the generation he is preaching to vanishes. This is seen as an essential failure in the teachings of Christ by many critics such as Bertrand Russell.[140]
However, Preterists argue that Jesus did not mean his second coming[Matt. 16:28] but speaks about demonstrations of his might, formulating this as "coming in his kingdom", especially the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple 70 AD, which he foretold, and by which time not all of his disciples were still living.[141] According to this view Matthew 10:23 should be understood in the same way.[142]
Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife[edit]
See also: Afterlife § Christianity
Most Christian traditions teach belief in life after death as a central and indispensable tenet of their faith. Critics argue that the Christian conception of the afterlife is inconsistent with that described in the Old Testament. George E. Mendenhall believes there is no concept of immortality or life after death in the Old Testament.[143] The presumption is that the deceased are inert, lifeless, and engaging in no activity.[143] However, two men, Enoch and Elijah, are taken into the afterlife without ever experiencing death.
The idea of Sheol ("שׁאול") or a state of nothingness was shared among Babylonian and Israelite beliefs. "Sheol, as it was called by the ancient Israelites, is the land of no return, lying below the cosmic ocean, to which all, the mighty and the weak, travel in the ghostly form they assume after death, known as Raphraim. There the dead have no experience of either joy or pain, perceiving no light, feeling no movement."[144] Obayashi alludes that the Israelites were satisfied with such a shadowy realm of afterlife because they were more deeply concerned with survival.[144]
Before Christianity began in the 1st century, the belief in an afterlife was already prevalent in Jewish thinking[145] among the Pharisees[146][147] and Essenes.[148] The themes of unity and sheol which largely shaped the ancient tradition of Judaism had been undermined when only the most pious of Jews were being massacred during the Maccabean revolt.

Criticism of Christians[edit]
See also: Anti-Christian sentiment
Christian right[edit]
Conservative Christians are often accused of being intolerant by secular humanists and liberal Christians, claiming that they oppose science that seems to contradict scripture (Creationism, use of birth control, research into embryonic stem cells, etc.), liberal democracy (separation of church and state), and progressive social policies (rights of people of other races and religions, of women, and of people with different sexual orientations).[149][150][151][152]
United States[edit]
Gallup polling shows that within the US, trust in organized religion has declined since the 70's.[153] Phil Zuckerman, a sociology professor, argues that political campaigning against same-sex marriage in churches “is turning off so many people from Christianity,” and responsible for a decline in the number of Christians in the United States.[154]
David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Institute, and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project published a study of attitudes of 16- to 29-year-old Americans towards Christianity. They found that about 38% of all those who were not regular churchgoers had negative impressions of Christianity, and especially evangelical Christianity, associating it with conservative political activism, hypocrisy, anti-homosexuality, authoritarianism, and judgmentalism.[155] About 17% had "very bad" perceptions of Christianity.[156][157][158]
Hypocrisy[edit]



 Protestant Christian dominated KKK hinting at violence toward Jews and Catholics. Illustration by Rev. Branford Clarke from Heroes of the Fiery Cross 1928 by Bishop Alma White published by the Pillar of Fire Church in Zarephath, NJ.
Gaudium et spes claims that the example of Christians may be a contributory factor to atheism, writing, "…believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."[159]
Secular and religious critics have accused many Christians of being hypocritical.[160] Tom Whiteman, a Philadelphia psychologist found that the primary reasons for Christian divorce include adultery, abuse (including substance, physical and verbal abuse), and abandonment whereas the number one reason cited for divorce in the general population was incompatibility.[161]
Materialism[edit]


Instead of understanding and following the teachings of Jesus, the Christians argued and quarreled about the nature of Jesus’s divinity and about the Trinity. They called each other heretics and persecuted each other and cut each other’s heads off. There was a great and violent controversy at one time among different Christian sects over a certain diphthong. One party said that the word Homo-ousion should be used in a prayer; the other wanted Homoi-ousion-this difference had reference to the divinity of Jesus. Over this diphthong fierce war was raged and large numbers of people were slaughtered.
— Jawaharlal Nehru[162][163]


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time.
— Mahatma Gandhi[164]
Sectarianism[edit]
Main articles: Sectarianism and Christian denomination
Some have argued that Christianity is undermined by the inability of Christians to agree on matters of faith and church governance, and the tendency for the content of their faith to be determined by regional or political factors. Schopenhauer sarcastically suggested:
To the South German ecclesiastic the truth of the Catholic dogma is quite obvious, to the North German, the Protestant. If then, these convictions are based on objective reasons, the reasons must be climatic, and thrive, like plants, some only here, some only there. The convictions of those who are thus locally convinced are taken on trust and believed by the masses everywhere.[165]
Christians respond that Ecumenism has helped bring together such communities, where in the past mistranslations of Christological Greek terms may have resulted in seemingly different views. Non-denominational Christianity represents another approach towards reducing the divisions within Christianity, although many Christian groups claiming to be non-denominational wind up with similar problems.
Persecution by Christians[edit]
Main articles: Christian debate on persecution and toleration and Christianity and violence
Individuals and groups throughout history have been persecuted by certain Christians (and Christian groups) based upon sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion (even within the bounds of Christianity itself). Many of the persecutors attempted to justify their actions with particular scriptural interpretations. During Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, important Christian theologians advocated religious persecution to varying degrees.[citation needed] However, Early modern Europe witnessed a turning point in the Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension".[166]
Early Christianity was a minority religion in the Roman Empire and the early Christians were themselves persecuted during that time. After Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already under the reign of Constantine I, Christian heretics had been persecuted; beginning in the late 4th century AD also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed. In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[167]
After the decline of the Roman Empire, the further Christianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful.[168] However, encounters between Christians and Pagans were sometimes confrontational, and some Christian kings (Charlemagne, Olaf I of Norway) were known for their violence against pagans. In the late Middle Ages, the appearance of the Cathars and Bogomils in Europe laid the stage for the later witch-hunts. These (probably gnostic-influenced) sects were seen as heretics by the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition was established to counter them.
After the Protestant Reformation, the devastation caused by the partly religiously motivated wars (Thirty Years' War, English Civil War, French Wars of Religion) in Europe in the 17th century gave rise to the ideas of Religious toleration, Freedom of religion and Religious pluralism.
Response of apologists[edit]
Christians will sometimes point out that in their points of view, the wrongdoings of other Christians are not the fault of their religious scriptures but of those who have wrongly interpreted it. They posit that the mistakes of Christians do not refute the validity of their teachings, but merely proves their weakness and sinful nature, of which they then turn to Christ. Thus, according to them, the "Word of God" can still be true and valid without it having been accurately followed.[citation needed] According to Ron Sider, an Evangelical theologian, "The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 5:17, 1 Cor 10:13). The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending."[169]
Similar arguments are held by Roman Catholics against critics of the Catholic Church, or by other Christians defending their respective Churches.[citation needed] of the Church's structure. Roman Catholics will argue that Popes who were corrupt in the Middle Ages is not the fault of the position of the Papacy or of the fact that there are obedient Priests lower in the hierarchy, but the fault of the individual people who act as "God's representative on Earth". Such examples can be seen in Dante's Divine Comedy, where Roman Catholic Clergy who had practiced simony find themselves in the lower circles of hell.
Anti-clericalism in Nazi Germany[edit]
Main articles: Anti-clericalism and Religion in Nazi Germany



Adolf Hitler established the Protestant Reich Church and suppressed dissenting Confessing Churches.[170][171]


Joseph Goebbels, as the Reich Minister of Propaganda worked to implement Kirchenkampf (church struggle), limiting the power of independent churches. He wrote that there was "an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[170]
Adolf Hitler's 1920 Nazi Party Platform promoted Positive Christianity - which mixed ideas of racial purity and Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity, and removed "Jewish" elements.[172][173]
Nazism aimed to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances.[174] Under the Gleichschaltung process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by the Confessing Church. Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate political catholicism. Amid harassment of the Church, the Reich concordat treaty with the Vatican was signed in 1933, and promised to respect Church autonomy. Hitler routinely disregarded the Concordat, closing all Catholic institutions whose functions were not strictly religious. Clergy, nuns, and lay leaders were targeted, with thousands of arrests over the ensuing years.[175]
Hitler was supportive of Christianity in public, yet hostile to it in private. Anti-clericalists like Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann saw the conflict with the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-church and anti-clerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[170] Hitler was born to a practising Catholic mother and an anticlerical father, but after leaving home Hitler never again attended Mass or received the sacraments. According to biographer Alan Bullock, Hitler retained some regard for the organisational power of Catholicism but held private contempt for its central teachings, which he said, if taken to their conclusion, "would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.":[171]
Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda used his position to widely publicise trials of clergy and nuns in his propaganda campaigns, showing the cases in the worst possible light. In 1928, soon after his election to the Reichstag, Goebbels wrote in his diary that National Socialism was a "religion" that needed a genius to uproot "outmoded religious practices" and put new ones in their place: "One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel."[176] As the war progressed, on the "Church Question", he wrote "after the war it has to be generally solved... There is, namely, an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[170]
Hitler's chosen deputy and private secretary, Martin Bormann, was a rigid guardian of National Socialist orthodoxy and saw Christianity and Nazism as "incompatible" (mainly because of its Jewish origins),[175][177] as did the official Nazi philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg. In his "Myth of the Twentieth Century" (1930), Rosenberg wrote that the main enemies of the Germans were the "Russian Tartars" and "Semites" - with "Semites" including Christians, especially the Catholic Church.[178]
According to Bullock, Hitler considered the Protestant clergy to be "insignificant" and "submissive" and lacking in a religion to be taken seriously.[179] Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from 28 separate regional churches through Gleichschaltung. His bid to create a unified Reich Church ultimately failed, and Hitler became disinterested in supporting the so-called "German Christians" Nazi aligned movement. Hitler initially lent support to Ludwig Muller, a Nazi and former naval chaplain, to serve as Reich Bishop, but his heretical views against Paul the Apostle and the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible (see Positive Christianity) quickly alienated sections of the Protestant church. Lutheran Pastor Martin Neimoller created the Confessing Church movement to oppose the Nazification of protestant churches.[180] Neimoller was arrested by the Gestapo in 1937, and sent to the concentration camps.[181] The Confessing Church seminary was prohibited that same year.[182]
Criticism by other religions[edit]
Hinduism[edit]



 Statue of Raja Ram Mohan Roy at College Green, Bristol, UK.
Ram Mohan Roy criticized Christian doctrines, and asserted that how "unreasonable" and "self-contradictory" they are.[183] He further adds that people, even from India were embracing Christianity due to the economic hardship and weakness, just like European Jews were pressured to embrace Christianity, by both encouragement and force.[184]
Vivekananda regarded Christianity as "..collection of little bits of Indian thought. Ours is the religion of which Buddhism with all its greatness is a rebel child, and of which Christianity is a very patchy imitation."[185]
Philosopher Dayanand Saraswati, regarded Christianity as "barbarous religion, and a 'false religion' religion believed only by fools and by the people in a state of barbarism,"[186] he included that Bible contains many stories and precepts that are immoral, praising cruelty, deceit and encouraging sin.[187]
Highly acclaimed Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, writes :-

Unfortunately Christian religion inherited the Semitic creed of the ‘jealous God’ in the view of Christ as ‘the only begotten son of God’ so could not brook any rival near the throne. When Europe accepted the Christian religion, in spite of its own broad humanism, it accepted the fierce intolerance which is the natural result of belief in 'the truth once for all delivered to the saints.'[188]
Judaism[edit]
See also: Talmud



Moshe Halbertal in 2009.
Shlomo ben Aderet criticized Christianity, adding that it has lesser form of monotheism, and lacks a unified deity compared to Judaism.[189]
David Flusser viewed Christianity as "Cheaper Judaism" and highly anti-judaism, he also highlighted the "failure of christianity to convert the Jewish people to the new message" as "precisely the reason for the strong anti-jewish trend in christianity."[190]
Professor Moshe Halbertal, regards Christianity to be "idolatrous religion," and he further adds that the idolatry by Christians "opened the door to the easing of many other restrictive prohibitions."[191]
Stephen Samuel Wise in his own words was critical towards Christian community, for their failure to rescue Jews, from Europe, during Nazi rule. He wrote that:-

A Christian world that will permit millions of Jews to be slain without moving heaven by prayer and earth in every human way to save its Jews has lost its capacity for moral and spiritual survival.[192]
Islam[edit]
Islam's prophet Muhammad said that Christians had to follow one God, but they have made multiple, he said:-

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God.[193]
Muslim scholars have criticized Christianity, usually for its Trinity concept. They argue that this doctrine is an invention, distortion of the idea about God, and presentation of the idea that there are three gods.[194]
Origins[edit]
See also: Historicity of Jesus, Christ myth theory and Christianity and Paganism
Some have argued that Christianity is not founded on a historical Jesus, but rather on a mythical creation.[195] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of Hellenistic mystery cults that acknowledged the non-historic nature of their deity using it instead as a teaching device.[196] Author Brian Branston has argued that Christianity adopted many mythological tales and traditions into its views of Jesus. According to Branston these traditions, largely from Greco-Roman religions, have parallels to the story of Jesus.[197] However, the position that Jesus was not a historical figure is essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship.[198]
Scholars and historians such as James H. Charlesworth caution against using parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the Hellenistic culture to conclude that Jesus is a purely legendary figure. Charlesworth argues that "it would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules and Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events…"[199]
See also[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of Christianity
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Protestantism
Antireligion
Antitheism
Biblical cosmology
Biblical literalism
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Christianity and multiculturalism
Criticism of Jesus
Christ myth theory
Internal consistency of the Bible
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Browning, W.R.F. "Biblical criticism." A Dictionary of the Bible. 1997 Encyclopedia.com. 8 Apr. 2010
2.^ Jump up to: a b Robinson, B.A. Biblical Criticism, including Form Criticism, Tradition Criticism, Higher Criticism, etc. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008. Web: 8 Apr 2010.
3.^ Jump up to: a b Mather, G.A. & L.A. Nichols, Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult, Zondervan (1993) (quoted in Robinson, Biblical Criticism
4.Jump up ^ See for example the list of alleged contradictions from The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Robert G. Ingersoll's article Inspiration Of Bible.
5.Jump up ^ M.W.J. Phelan. The Inspiration of the Pentateuch, Two-edged Sword Publications (March 9, 2005) ISBN 978-0-9547205-6-8
6.Jump up ^ Ronald D. Witherup, Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, Liturgical Press (2001), page 26.
7.Jump up ^ France, R.T., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England (1985), pg. 17.
8.Jump up ^ Britannica Encyclopedia, Jesus Christ, p.17
9.^ Jump up to: a b c Lindsell, Harold. "The Battle for the Bible", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA (1976), pg. 38.
10.^ Jump up to: a b c Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
11.Jump up ^ As in 2 Timothy 3:16, discussed by Thompson, Mark (2006). A Clear and Present Word. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: Apollos. p. 92. ISBN 1-84474-140-0.
12.Jump up ^ Norman L. Geisler, William E. Nix (2012), From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible, Moody Publishers, p. PT45, ISBN 978-0802483928 "faith and practice"
13.Jump up ^ See notably Grudem, representative of recent scholarship with this emphasis (Grudem, Wayne (1994). Systematic Theology. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. pp. 90–105. ISBN 978-0-85110-652-6.).
14.Jump up ^ Till, Farrell (1991). "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled". Internet Infidels. Retrieved 2007-01-16.
15.Jump up ^ W. H. Bellinger; William Reuben Farmer, eds. (1998). Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Trinity Press. ISBN 9781563382307. Retrieved 2 August 2013. "Did Jesus of Nazareth live and die without the teaching about the righteous Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 having exerted any significant influence on his ministry? Is it probable that this text exerted no significant influence upon Jesus' understanding of the plan of God to save the nations that the prophet Isaiah sets forth?" —Two questions addressed in a conference on "Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins" at Baylor University in the fall of 1995, the principal papers of which are available in "Jesus and the Suffering Servant."
16.Jump up ^ Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks, Moody Pr, 1958, ISBN 0-8024-7630-9
17.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L. (2002). did not accomplish%22 Understanding the Bible (6 ed.). McGraw-Hill College. pp. 376–377. ISBN 9780767429160. Retrieved 2 August 2013. (Further snippets of quote: B C D)
18.^ Jump up to: a b Biography of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki
19.Jump up ^ Chizzuk Emunah, TorahLab Store
20.Jump up ^ Pascal, Blaise (1958). Pensees. Translator W. F. Trotter. chapter x, xii, xiii.
21.Jump up ^ McDowell, Josh (1999). "chapter 8". The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson. ISBN 9781850785521.
22.Jump up ^ See, for example, the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15
23.Jump up ^ For instance "What's wrong with being gay?" at ChristianAnswers.net argues that the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality are renewed in the New Testament
24.Jump up ^ For example, Theonomy: What it is; What it is not
25.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger, cited in The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
26.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins. p. 91. ISBN 9780060738174. Retrieved 2 August 2013.
27.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1993
28.Jump up ^ Wallace, Daniel B. "The Gospel According to Bart: A Review Article of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2006 (also available at Bible.org) Craig L. Blomberg, "Review of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," Denver Seminary, February 2006
Howe, Thomas (2006). "A Response To Bart D_ Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus". International Society of Christian Apologetics. p. PDF download. Retrieved 31 July 2013.
29.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). Whose Word Is It?. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8264-9129-4. p. 166
30.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger "A Textual Commentary on the New Testament", Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society
31.^ Jump up to: a b K. Aland and B. Aland, "The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions & To The Theory & Practice Of Modern Text Criticism", 1995, op. cit., p. 29-30.
32.^ Jump up to: a b c "English Handbook Page 34 999KB" (PDF).
33.Jump up ^ Dialogue of Trypho Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, LXIII
34.Jump up ^ Matthew 1:23 compare multiple versions and languages
35.Jump up ^ Interlinear Hebrew in English order
36.Jump up ^ The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
37.Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Virgin Birth of Christ
38.Jump up ^ Charles D. Isbell, Biblical Archaeological Review, June 1977, "Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary’s Virginity?"
39.Jump up ^ Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in Luther's Works, vol. 45: The Christian in Society II, ed. H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962).
40.Jump up ^ See also "Given the New Testament a Chance?" from the Messiah Truth website
41.^ Jump up to: a b David Sper, Managing Editor, "Questions Skeptics Ask About Messianic Prophecies," RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI, 1997
42.Jump up ^ See Psalms 22:6-8,22:13; 69:8, 69:20-21; Isaiah 11:1, 49:7, 53:2-3,53:8; Daniel 9:26
43.Jump up ^ Hume, David (2000). "Chapter 10. Of Religion". In Tom L. Beauchamp. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: A Critical Edition. Volume 3 of The Clarendon edition of the works of David Hume (Oxford University Press). p. 86. ISBN 9780198250609. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
44.Jump up ^ *Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, Vol. 1 (ISBN 1-878997-67-X) Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, Vol. 2 (ISBN 187899767X)
45.Jump up ^ Bruce L. Flamm, MD (2004). "Inherent Dangers of Faith-Healing Studies". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.
46.Jump up ^ "Are Miracles Logically Impossible?". Come Reason Ministries, Convincing Christianity. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
47.Jump up ^ ""Miracles are not possible," some claim. Is this true?". ChristianAnswers.net. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
48.Jump up ^ Paul K. Hoffman. "A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Hume’s "in Principal" Argument Against Miracles" (PDF). Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, Spring, 1999; Copyright ©1999 by Southern Evangelical Seminary. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
49.Jump up ^ Melvin E. Page, Penny M. Sonnenburg (2003). Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 496. "Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale."
50.Jump up ^ Bevans, Steven. "Christian Complicity in Colonialism/ Globalism" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-17. "The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth. This was not all bad — oftentimes missionaries were heroic defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples"
51.Jump up ^ Andrews, Edward (2010). "Christian Missions and Colonial Empires Reconsidered: A Black Evangelist in West Africa, 1766–1816". Journal of Church & State 51 (4): 663–691. doi:10.1093/jcs/csp090. "Historians have traditionally looked at Christian missionaries in one of two ways. The first church historians to catalogue missionary history provided hagiographic descriptions of their trials, successes, and sometimes even martyrdom. Missionaries were thus visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, an era marked by civil rights movements, anti-colonialism, and growing secularization, missionaries were viewed quite differently. Instead of godly martyrs, historians now described missionaries as arrogant and rapacious imperialists. Christianity became not a saving grace but a monolithic and aggressive force that missionaries imposed upon defiant natives. Indeed, missionaries were now understood as important agents in the ever-expanding nation-state, or “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them."
52.Jump up ^ Meador, Jake. "Cosmetic Christianity and the Problem of Colonialism – Responding to Brian McLaren". Retrieved 17 November 2010. "According to Jake Meador, "some Christians have tried to make sense of post-colonial Christianity by renouncing practically everything about the Christianity of the colonizers. They reason that if the colonialists’ understanding of Christianity could be used to justify rape, murder, theft, and empire then their understanding of Christianity is completely wrong."
53.Jump up ^ Conquistadors, Michael Wood, p. 20, BBC Publications, 2000
54.^ Jump up to: a b c d Robinson, B. A. (2006). "Christianity and slavery". Retrieved 2007-01-03.
55.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia Slavery and Christianity
56.^ Jump up to: a b Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News (Associated Press). Retrieved 28 October 2014.
57.Jump up ^ Jack D. Forbes (1993), Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples, University of Illinois Press, p. 27, ISBN 978-0252063213
58.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery ISBN 978-0-691-11436-1 (2003)
59.Jump up ^ Lamin Sanneh, Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa, Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0-674-00718-5 (2001)
60.Jump up ^ Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
61.Jump up ^ "Abolitionist Movement". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
62.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
63.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
64.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
65.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
66.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
67.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
68.Jump up ^ Thurston, Herbert. St. Joan of Arc. 1910. Catholic Encyclopedia
69.Jump up ^ Feminist philosophy of religion
70.Jump up ^ "The Status Of Women In The Old Testament".
71.Jump up ^ The Woman's Bible
72.Jump up ^ Clark, Elizabeth. Women in the Early Church. Liturgical Press, 1984. ISBN 0-8146-5332-4
73.Jump up ^ Jesus' Family Tree
74.^ Jump up to: a b "King, Karen L. "Women in Ancient Christianity: the New Discoveries." Karen L. King is Professor of New Testament Studies and the History of Ancient Christianity at Harvard University in the Divinity School.
75.Jump up ^ Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. ISBN 0-664-24195-6
76.Jump up ^ Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles (2nd ed.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1989, ISBN 978-0-8010-0885-6. pp. 82–104
77.Jump up ^ Schalom Ben-Chorin.Brother Jesus: the Nazarene through Jewish eyes. U of Georgia Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8203-2256-8, p.66
78.Jump up ^ See "About the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus".
79.Jump up ^ Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
80.Jump up ^ Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (eds.). Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. IVP 2004. p. 17.
81.Jump up ^ Grudem, Wayne A. "Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), 47/2 (June 2004) 299–346
82.Jump up ^ Eck, Diana L. Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras. (2003) p. 98
83.^ Jump up to: a b Brumley, Mark. "Why God is Father and not Mother". The Catholic Faith Magazine. July/August 1999. Accessed 25 Feb 2013
84.^ Jump up to: a b "Baptist Faith and Message"
85.Jump up ^ (non-English) - The second image shows deaconnesses, on August 15th, for the prayers on the day of the Assumption of Mary
86.Jump up ^ The 9 Most Important Issues Facing the Evangelical Church
87.Jump up ^ See, for example, Everybody's Talkin' About Christian Fascism by Gary Leupp.
88.Jump up ^ George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism
89.Jump up ^ Clarke, Arthur C. & Watts, Alan (January), “At the Interface: Technology and Mysticism”, Playboy (Chicago, Ill.: HMH Publishing) 19 (1): 94, ISSN 0032-1478, OCLC 3534353
90.Jump up ^ Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion?, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2007, ISBN 978-0-281-05927-0
91.Jump up ^ Luke 6
92.Jump up ^ Peoples, Dr., Glenn Andrew. "Whittling down the pacifist narrative: Did early Christians serve in the army?". www.rightreason.org. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
93.Jump up ^ 1Kings 18:17-46
94.Jump up ^ Deuteronomy 17:5
95.Jump up ^ Psalm 18:37
96.Jump up ^ International encyclopedia of violence research, Volume 2. Springer. 2003.
97.^ Jump up to: a b J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 28 October 2014. ""[3rd paragraph] I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence." "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing – in war, capital punishment, murder – but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury."
98.Jump up ^ Sam Harris (2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-0-307-26577-7.
99.Jump up ^ War, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, W. E Addis, T. Arnold, Revised T. B Scannell and P. E Hallett, 15th Edition, Virtue & Co, 1953, Nihil Obstat: Reginaldus Philips, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, 2 October 1950, "In the Name of God : Violence and Destruction in the World's Religions", M. Jordan, 2006, p. 40[unreliable source?]
100.Jump up ^ Quotation: "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science." (p. 7), from the essay by Colin A. Russell "The Conflict Thesis" in Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0".
101.Jump up ^ Quotation: "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the "warfare between science and religion" and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science." (p. 195) Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press Chicago, Ill.
102.Jump up ^ Quotation: "In its traditional forms, the [conflict] thesis has been largely discredited." (p. 42) Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
103.Jump up ^ Quotation from Ferngren's introduction at "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.": "…while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind." (p. x)
104.Jump up ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
105.Jump up ^ From Ferngren's introduction:
 "…while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind. (p. x)-Gary Ferngren, (2002); Introduction, p. ix)
106.Jump up ^ Sagan, Carl. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 3: "The Harmony of the Worlds"
107.Jump up ^ quoted in Ted Peters, Science and Religion, Encyclopedia of Religion, p.8182
108.Jump up ^ Petto, Andrew J.; Godfrey, Laurie R. (2007). Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0393050904.
109.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1992). Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton. pp. 432–447. ISBN 039330857X.
110.Jump up ^ The compass in this 13th-century manuscript is a symbol of God's act of Creation.
 * Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Washington, DC: Regenery, 2005), ISBN 0-89526-038-7
111.Jump up ^ Howard W. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers, Indiana University Press, 2003, p. 12
112.Jump up ^ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books (1994) pages 38-39.
113.Jump up ^ "Let no cultured person draw near, none wise and none sensible, for all that kind of thing we count evil; but if any man is ignorant, if any man is wanting in sense and culture, if anybody is a fool, let him come boldly [to become a Christian]. Celsus, AD178
114.Jump up ^ "Since we all inherit Adam's sin, we all deserve eternal damnation. All who die unbaptized, even infants, will go to hell and suffer unending torment. We have no reason to complain of this, since we are all wicked. (In the Confessions, the Saint enumerates the crimes of which he was guilty in the cradle.) But by God's free grace certain people, among those who have been baptized, are chosen to go to heaven; these are the elect. They do not go to heaven because they are good; we are all totally depraved, except insofar as God's grace, which is only bestowed on the elect, enables us to be otherwise. No reason can be given why some are saved and the rest damned; this is due to God's unmotivated choice. Damnation proves God's justice; salvation His mercy. Both equally display His goodness." A history of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster, 1945
115.Jump up ^ Bible Teaching and Religious Practice essay: "Europe and Elsewhere," Mark Twain, 1923)
116.Jump up ^ Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27
117.Jump up ^ What do Orthodox Christians teach about death and when we die?
118.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1035, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 0-89243-565-8,1994-the revised version issued 1997 has no changes in this section
119.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 0-89243-565-8,1994
120.Jump up ^ Richard Beck. "Christ and Horrors, Part 3: Horror Defeat, Universalism, and God's Reputation". Experimental Theology. March 19, 2007.
121.Jump up ^ Jonathan Kvanvig, The Problem of Hell, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-508487-0, 1993
122.Jump up ^ "The Works of Thomas Manton", by Thomas Manton, p. 99
123.Jump up ^ Cultural Anxieties over the Child in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries by William F. MacLehose
124.Jump up ^ Canon Law 1983
125.^ Jump up to: a b CNS STORY: Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'
126.Jump up ^ n:Vatican abolishes Limbo
127.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday. 1994. p. 845. ISBN 0-385-47967-0.
128.Jump up ^ Limbo: Recent statements by the Catholic church; Protestant views on Limbo at Religioustolerance.org
129.Jump up ^ Root of All Evil? (2006) (TV)-Memorable quotes
130.Jump up ^ McGrath, Alister (2004). Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 1-4051-2538-1.
131.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (September 17, 2007). "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
132.Jump up ^ Marianna Krejci-Papa, 2005. "Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrath." Science & Theology News, 2005–04–25.
133.Jump up ^ Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity, Regnery Publishing, ISBN 1-59698-517-8 (2007)
134.Jump up ^ Andrew Wilson, Deluded by Dawkins?, Kingsway Publications, ISBN 978-1-84291-355-0 (2007)
135.Jump up ^ A Biographical Appreciation of Robert Green Ingersoll: Chapter 11
136.Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.
137.Jump up ^ More Than A Carpenter, Tyndale House, Wheaton, Illinois, 1977, ISBN 978-0-8423-4552-1
138.Jump up ^ Jeffery, Steve; Ovey, Michael; Sach, Andrew (2007). Pierced for our transgressions. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. ch. 13. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6.
139.Jump up ^ Most notably, Matthew 10:22-23, 16:27-28, 23:36, 24:29-34, 26:62-64; Mark 9:1, 14:24-30, 14:60-62; and Luke 9:27
140.Jump up ^ In his famous essay Why I Am Not a Christian
141.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, Columbia Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28 - see last 4 paragraphs
142.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion - What is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
143.^ Jump up to: a b From Witchcraft to Justice: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament, George E. Mendenhall.
144.^ Jump up to: a b Hiroshi Obayashi, Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. See Introduction.
145.Jump up ^ Jewish eschatology#Olam Haba - the afterlife and the world to come Jewish eschatology: The afterlife and olam haba
146.Jump up ^ Acts 23:6-8
147.Jump up ^ Pharisees#Pharisaic principles and values Pharisees: Pharisaic Principles and Values
148.Jump up ^ Essenes#Rules, customs, theology and beliefs Essenes: Rules, customs, theology and beliefs
149.Jump up ^ Chip Berlet, "Following the Threads," in Ansell, Amy E. Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, pp. 24, Westview Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8133-3147-1
150.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
151.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
152.Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson, White (1898). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. p. X. Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anaesthetics.
153.Jump up ^ Cathy Lynn Grossman (17 June 2015). "Americans’ confidence in religion hits a new low". Religion News Service.
154.Jump up ^ "U.S. has become notably less Christian, major study finds". LA Times. 12 May 2015.
155.Jump up ^ About 91% of young outsiders felt Christians were anti-homosexual, 87% felt Christians were judgemental and 85% thought Christians were hypocritical.
156.Jump up ^ "Millennials Leave Their Churches Over Science, Lesbian & Gay Issues". Public Religion Research Institute. 10 June 2011.
157.Jump up ^ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-10-10-christians-young_N.htm
158.Jump up ^ "America’s Change of Mind on Same-Sex Marriage and LGBTQ Rights". Barna. 3 Jul 2013.
159.Jump up ^ Gaudium et spes, 19
160.Jump up ^ The Evangelical Scandal – Christianity Today
161.Jump up ^ Marriage 103: The Raw Reality of Divorce and its Terrible Results
162.Jump up ^ In his book "Glimpses of world history", p. 86-87
163.Jump up ^ "Secularism and Hindutva, a Discursive Study", by A. A. Parvathy, p.42
164.Jump up ^ As quoted by William Rees-Mogg 4 April 2005 edition of The Times. Gandhi here makes reference to a statement of Jesus: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13)
165.Jump up ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur; trans. T. Bailey Saunders. "Religion: A Dialogue". The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer.
166.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p. 206.
167.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.22
168.Jump up ^ *Lutz E. von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mitterlalter, Reclam (German), p. 183
169.Jump up ^ The Evangelical Scandal
170.^ Jump up to: a b c d Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.381-382
171.^ Jump up to: a b Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219
172.Jump up ^ William L. Shirer (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. London: Secker & Warburg. pp. 238–39.
173.Jump up ^ Robert Michael; Philip Rosen (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. p. 321.
174.Jump up ^ Ian Kershaw; The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation; 4th Edn; Oxford University Press; New York; 2000"; pp. 173–74
175.^ Jump up to: a b Encyclopedia Britannica Online: Fascism - Identification with Christianity; 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2013
176.Jump up ^ American Experience . The Man Behind Hitler . Transcript | PBS
177.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Martin Bormann; web 25 April 2013
178.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Alfred Rosenberg; web 25 April 2013.
179.Jump up ^ Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219"
180.Jump up ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.295-297
181.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Martin Niemöller; web 24 April 2013
182.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Dietrich Bonhoeffer; web 25 April 2013
183.Jump up ^ "Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Page 166, by Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi, year = 2010
184.Jump up ^ "Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Page 169, by Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi, year = 2010
185.Jump up ^ "Neo-Hindu Views of Christianity", p. 96, by Arvind Sharma, year = 1988
186.Jump up ^ "Gandhi on Pluralism and Communalism", by P. L. John Panicker, p.39, year = 2006
187.Jump up ^ "Dayānanda Sarasvatī, his life and ideas", p. 267, by J. T. F. Jordens
188.Jump up ^ The Philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, by Paul Arthur Schilpp, page = 641
189.Jump up ^ "Judaism and Other Religions", p. 88, publisher = Palgrave Macmillan
190.Jump up ^ Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, by Miriam S. Taylor, p. 41
191.Jump up ^ "Idolatry", by Moshe Halbertal, p. 212
192.Jump up ^ Wise Criticizes Christian World for Failure to Rescue Jews in Nazi Europe 19 February 1943
193.Jump up ^ "Global Civilization: A Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue", by Daisaku Ikeda, Majid Tehranian, p. 36
194.Jump up ^ Christianity: An Introduction, p. 125, by Alister E. McGrath
195.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth theory: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
196.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
197.Jump up ^ Brian Branston, The Lost Gods of England
198.Jump up ^ Historian Michael Grant stated, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." —Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995). "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." —Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Eerdrmans (2004), page 24: "most scholars regard the argument for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response".
199.Jump up ^ Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4880-X.
Further reading[edit]


 This article's further reading may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive, less relevant or many publications with the same point of view; or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations. (August 2013)
Skeptical of Christianity[edit]
A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science, Gryphon Books (1971).
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel Dennett
Civilization and its discontents, by Sigmund Freud
Death and Afterlife, Perspectives of World Religions, by Hiroshi Obayashi
Einstein and Religion, by Max Jammer
From Jesus to Christianity, by L. Michael White
Future of an illusion, by Sigmund Freud
Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Ehrman
Out of my later years and the World as I see it, by Albert Einstein
Russell on Religion, by Louis Greenspan (Includes most all of Russell's essays on religion)
The Antichrist, by Friedrich Nietzsche
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, by Carl Sagan
Understanding the Bible, by Stephen L Harris
Where God and Science Meet [Three Volumes]: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion, by Patrick McNamara
Why I am not a Christian and other essays, by Bertrand Russell
Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus Books, 2008)
The Christian Delusion, edited by John W. Loftus, foreword by Dan Barker (Prometheus Books, 2010)
The End of Christianity, edited by John W. Loftus (Prometheus Books, 2011)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G. A. Wells (Prometheus Books, 1988)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications, 1999)
The encyclopedia of Biblical errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books, 1995)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (Element 1999)
The reason driven life by Robert M. Price (Prometheus Books, 2006)
The case against the case for Christ by Robert M. Price (American atheist press 2010)
God, the failed hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger (Prometheus Books, 2007)
Jesus never existed by Kenneth Humphreys (Iconoclast Press, 2005)
Defending Christianity[edit]
Main article: List of Christian apologetic works
"The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity" by John Warwick Montgomery. An Excerpt from "Evidence for Faith" Chapter 6, Part 2 http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm
"The Infidel Delusion" by Patrick Chan, Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, and Paul Manata http://www.calvindude.com/ebooks/InfidelDelusion.pdf
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, by David Bentley Hart
Dethroning Jesus, by Darrell Bock, Daniel B. Wallace
Jesus Among Other Gods, by Ravi Zacharias
Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis
Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton
Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig
Reinventing Jesus, by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
The Dawkins Letters, by David Robertson
The Reason For God, by Timothy J Keller
External links[edit]


 This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2013)
General[edit]
Professor James Tabor's educational site on the Jewish Roman world of Jesus
Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE
Skeptical[edit]
The Warfare of Science With Theology by Andrew White
New Testament contradictions by Paul Carlson
Christian Anti-Semitism
PBS Special: Apocalypse! Contains Jesus' apocalyptic promises along with those of Saint Paul's.
From other religions[edit]
Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened): English translation of Isaac of Troki's 16th-century Jewish anti-Christian polemic
Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Unhistorical Character of the Gospels
Apologetic[edit]
Reasonable Faith http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer
Probe Ministries
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries http://www.rzim.org/
Stand to Reason http://www.str.org/site/PageServer
Reasons to Believe http://www.reasons.org/
Debates[edit]
"Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier (audio) http://www.philvaz.com/CraigCarrierDebate.mp3
The Great Debate: Does God Exist?-transcript in PDF of a formal debate between presuppositionalist Christian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein.
The Martin-Frame Debate A written debate between skeptic Michael Martin and Christian John Frame about the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
The Drange-Wilson Debate A written debate between skeptic Theodore Drange and Christian Douglas Wilson.
"Is Non-Christian Thought Futile?" A written debate between Christian Doug Jones and skeptics Keith Parsons and Michael Martin in Antithesis magazine (vol. 2, no. 4).
"Is Christianity Good for the World?" A written debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and theologian Douglas Wilson in Christianity Today magazine (web only, May 2007).
God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren Debate between Christian Rick Warren and atheist Sam Harris as reported by Newsweek (April 9, 2007).
"Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off." A video debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and atheists Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor of the Rational Response Squad. Report of the debate posted on the Nightline website. Video of the debate posted on The Way of the Master website.
The Jesseph-Craig Debate: Does God Exist? (1996)-Transcripts of a debate between Christian William Lane Craig and atheist Douglas M. Jesseph.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity











Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.









































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion
































































































































  


Categories: Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of religion






















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Español
Français
한국어
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 June 2015, at 14:55.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity










Criticism of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance. For the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document, see Biblical criticism.

Crystal Clear app kedit.svg
 This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (February 2014)
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[hide]

Gnostic ·
 Islamic ·
 Qur'anic

Inerrancy ·
 Infallibility
 Criticism of the Bible

Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
The view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many scholars in the field of biblical criticism. In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, Jews and most Christians discredit the legitimacy of New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.


Contents  [hide]
1 Bible history issues
2 Translation issues
3 Ethics in the Bible
4 Internal consistency
5 The Bible and science
6 The Bible and archaeology
7 Unfulfilled prophecies 7.1 Messianic prophecies
7.2 Prophecies after the event
7.3 The success of Joshua
7.4 The destruction of Tyre
7.5 The protection of the King of Judah
7.6 The death of the king of Judah
7.7 The death of Josiah
7.8 The land promised to Abraham
7.9 The fate of Damascus
7.10 The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt
7.11 The return of Jewish prisoners of war
7.12 The strength of Judah
7.13 The identity of the conquerors of Babylon
7.14 Jehoiakim prophecies
7.15 New Testament 7.15.1 The imminence of the second coming

8 Notable critics
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Bible history issues[edit]



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Main articles: Biblical Criticism and Higher Criticism
The Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles are works considered sacred and authoritative writings by their respective faith groups that revere their specific collections of biblical writings.[1] The Hebrew Bible, upon which the Christian Old Testament is based, was originally composed in Biblical Hebrew, except for parts of Daniel and Ezra that were written in Biblical Aramaic. These writings depict Israelite religion from its beginnings to about the 2nd century BC. The Christian New Testament was written in Koine Greek. (See Language of the New Testament for details.)
At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have doubted that Moses wrote the Torah, but in the late 18th century some liberal scholars began to question his authorship, and by the end of the 19th century some went as far as to claim that as a whole the work was of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to mythic aspects, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense.

While the limits of the canon were effectively set in these early centuries, the status of scripture has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the later church. Increasingly, the biblical works have been subjected to literary and historical criticism in efforts to interpret the texts independent of Church and dogmatic influences. Different views of the authority and inspiration of the Bible also continue to be expressed in liberal and fundamentalist churches today. What cannot be denied, however, is the enormous influence which the stories, poetry, and reflections found in the biblical writings have had, not only on the doctrines and practices of two major faiths, but also on Western culture, its literature, art, and music.[1]
In the 2nd century, the gnostics often claimed that their form of Christianity was the first, and they regarded Jesus as a teacher, or allegory.[2] Elaine Pagels has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles.[citation needed] Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous,[3] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.
Some critics have alleged that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.[4] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus,[5] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Translation issues[edit]
Main articles: Biblical manuscripts, Textual criticism and Biblical inerrancy
Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well-respected but centuries-old copies. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.[6]
Translation has led to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar and word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation as the truly accurate one—for example, the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages.
Because many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is רוח אלהים (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, רוח(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities.[7][8][9][10] Another example is the word used in the Masoretic Text [Isa 7:14] to indicate the woman who would bear Immanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage that uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.
In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.[11]
More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement rejects these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.[12]
Ethics in the Bible[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain moral decisions in the Bible are questioned by many modern groups. Some of the most commonly criticized ethical choices include subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest,[13] toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments,[14] obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Christian Apologists support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be considered from the author's point of view and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments.[15] One example that is often cited is the biblical law of the rebellious son:[16]

"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear." (Deut. 21:18-21)
Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead",[17] have questioned the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.
Internal consistency[edit]
Main article: Internal consistency of the Bible
There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies—such as different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for the same events—have been alleged and presented by critics as difficulties.[18] Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis and theories that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous.[19]:p.47 Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by other authorities that consider the texts to be consistent. Such advocates maintain that the Torah was written by a single source, the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles to have been written by the Apostle Paul.[citation needed]
However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[20] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".[21] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[22] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[23][24]
For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include Mark 16:9-20, i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8, and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".[25][26][27]
Mosaic authorship, authorship of the Gospels and authorship of the Pauline Epistles are topics that remain widely debated.
The Bible and science[edit]
Main article: Science and the Bible
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).


Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies.
Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
[28] Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[29] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise.
Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. (The Bible traces back to Adam's creation around 4000 BCE. There is debate over the 24 hour earth-days in which the earth was created as only on the fourth day were the sun, moon and stars created - without the sun a 24 hour earth-day is impossible. Genesis 1:16-19) This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[30] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[31] Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.[32]

The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.
— Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould
Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.
The Bible and archaeology[edit]
Main articles: The Bible and history and Biblical archaeology
According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever,

"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[33] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[34]
Dever also wrote:

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[35] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[36]
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[37][38]
Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[39] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[39]
Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:

“Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[40]
Unfulfilled prophecies[edit]
See also: Bible prophecy
The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[41]
Messianic prophecies[edit]
See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus
According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[42][43][44] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.
An example of this is Isaiah 7:14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah.[45][46] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[46][47]
Prophecies after the event[edit]
Main articles: Postdiction and Vaticinium ex eventu
An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such as Daniel 11.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]
Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus the Great. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40-55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[55] Whereas Isaiah 1-39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isaiah 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[56]
The success of Joshua[edit]
The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[57] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittite land, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him.
While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[58] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns.[59] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[60][61] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[62][63][64] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal.
The destruction of Tyre[edit]



Tyre harbourEzekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.
Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[65][66] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18).
Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:

It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[67]
The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[68] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:

The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[69]
Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:

Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[70]
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[71] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[72]
The protection of the King of Judah[edit]
Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6).
In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[73]
The death of the king of Judah[edit]
In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jeremiah 34:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 52:9-11), he was put in prison until the day of his death.
Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[74] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed]
The death of Josiah[edit]
Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[75]
Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[76] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[77]



 Map showing the borders of the Promised Land, based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
The land promised to Abraham[edit]
Main article: Promised Land
According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[78]
An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:

David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[79]
Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that

Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[80]
The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16).
The fate of Damascus[edit]
According to Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.
An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War.

The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[81]
The passage is consistent with 2 Kings 16:9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt[edit]
According to Jeremiah 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.[82]
According to apologists, a more thorough examination of the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[83]
The return of Jewish prisoners of war[edit]
Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 27:12-13, Jeremiah 3:18, Jeremiah 31:1-23, and Jeremiah 33:7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[84] Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.
Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.
Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[85] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon.[86] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[87] The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[88]
The strength of Judah[edit]
Isaiah 19:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened.
According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[89][90]
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon[edit]
Isaiah 13:17, Isaiah 21:2, Jeremiah 51:11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.
Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[91] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.

Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[92]
Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31.
Jehoiakim prophecies[edit]
The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died.
Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[93]
Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (Jeremiah 22:18-19, Jeremiah 36:30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".
Apologists proposal for a partial solution:

In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, Adar, Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18-year old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[94]
Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[95] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2[96] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear.
Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[75]
Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.
The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[97] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
New Testament[edit]



 The Wailing Wall by night. According to Luke 19:41-44: As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.
Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the Second Temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard,) still remains.
In reply, John Robinson writes that

it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[98]
The imminence of the second coming[edit]
See also: Second coming
Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)

(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)
It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[99] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[100] Note, however, that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse Dispensationalism.[101][102][103] Furthermore it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄψεσθε" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[104] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.
This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)

Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.
Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.

We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[105]

...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[106]
In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[107]
The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
[108]

The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:

Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this lie. When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese—they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate.
The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this.[109] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).
Notable critics[edit]
Isaac Asimov
Richard Dawkins
Albert Einstein [110]
Christopher Hitchens
Robert G. Ingersoll[111]
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Mark Twain
Voltaire
See also[edit]
Bible conspiracy theory
Criticism of the Book of Mormon
Criticism of the Talmud
Criticism of the Qur'an
Christ myth theory
Misquoting Jesus
Tahrif
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Bible." The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. West Chiltington: Crystal Reference, 2005. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
2.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford. pp. 122–123, 185. ISBN 0-19-514183-0.
3.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. pp. 372–3. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 621, 639, 654. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. Scholars who hold to Pauline authorship include Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 622.
4.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth hypothesis: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
5.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
6.Jump up ^ "Bible." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
7.Jump up ^ The Bible in the Syriac tradition, Sebastian P. Brock, p. 13
8.Jump up ^ God's conflict with the dragon and the sea: echoes of a Canaanite myth, John Day
9.Jump up ^ Understanding Biblical Israel: a reexamination of the origins of monotheism, Stanley Ned Rosenbaum
10.Jump up ^ The Jewish religion: a companion By Louis Jacobs, p. 251
11.Jump up ^ Exod. 20:14, 1631 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
12.Jump up ^ Eric Pement, Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate online.
13.Jump up ^ Genesis 19:30-36
14.Jump up ^ "How Can We Trust a Bible that Tolerated Slavery?" Discovery Series, RBC Ministries. July 27, 2009.
15.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
16.Jump up ^ Schulweis, Harold M. (2009). Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights. pp. 28–30. ISBN 1-58023-419-4.
17.Jump up ^ Saugstad, Andreas. "Nietzsche & Christianity" July 28, 2009.
18.Jump up ^ "Contradictions from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible". Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
19.Jump up ^ Knight, George William, Howard Marshall, and W. Ward Gasque. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). William. B. Eerdmans, 1997. ISBN 0-8028-2395-5 / 9780802823953
20.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
21.Jump up ^ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.
22.Jump up ^ Sanders, Ed Parish (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. p. 85. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
23.Jump up ^ Hurtado, Larry W. (June 2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 319. ISBN 0-8028-6070-2.
24.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
25.Jump up ^ The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, by Guy D. Nave, pg 194 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=4CGScYTomYsC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=ex8JIDMwMD&sig=oCI_C1mXVSZYoz34sVlgRDaO__Q&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
26.Jump up ^ The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism, by John Shelby Spong, Christian Century September 26, 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256
27.Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg175 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=B2lfhy5lvlkC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=vp5GVlmghC&sig=XN1KJCsBkTWO2Fot4SBhnpWoRkY&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
28.Jump up ^ Driscoll, J.F. (1909). "Firmament". In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 26 May 2008 from New Advent. ("That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages...").
29.Jump up ^ The Galileo Controversy at Catholic Answers
30.Jump up ^ http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
31.Jump up ^ "Cosmic Detectives". The European Space Agency (ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
32.Jump up ^ Barbara Bradley Hagerty (August 9, 2011). "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve". All Things Considered.
33.Jump up ^ Bible gets a reality check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle
34.Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008
35.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
36.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
37.Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126
38.Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
39.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem
40.Jump up ^ Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007
41.Jump up ^ Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur. Reasons We Believe. Crossway, 2008. ISBN 1-4335-0146-5 / 9781433501463. Aug. 6, 2009: [2]
42.Jump up ^ Why did the majority of the Jewish world reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why did the first Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Shraga Simmons (about.com)
43.Jump up ^ Michoel Drazin (1990). Their Hollow Inheritance. A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries. Gefen Publishing House, Ltd. ISBN 965-229-070-X.
44.Jump up ^ Troki, Isaac. "Faith Strengthened".
45.Jump up ^ Glaser, Zhava. "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" Issues—A Messianic Jewish Perspective. July 30, 2009.
46.^ Jump up to: a b "The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14". Messiahtruth.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
47.Jump up ^ Why do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth? The Second Jewish Book Of Why p.66 by Alfred J. Kolatch 1985
48.Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
49.Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.
50.Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. v.2 955–6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.
51.Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7.
52.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-541949-8.
53.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
54.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert J. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.
55.Jump up ^ Simon John De Vries: From old Revelation to new: a tradition-historical and redaction-critical study of temporal transitions in prophetic prediction. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1995, ISBN 978-0-8028-0683-3, p. 126
56.Jump up ^ Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard: Mercer dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press 1990, ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7, p. 414
57.Jump up ^ Joshua 1:1-9
58.Jump up ^ Joshua 15:63
59.Jump up ^ Joshua 17:12-13
60.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 19.
61.Jump up ^ Judges 3:5-6
62.Jump up ^ Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians, Ann E. Killebrew, pp. 152-154, 2005
63.Jump up ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 1136
64.Jump up ^ The Old Testament world, By John Rogerson, Philip R. Davies, 1989, p. 358
65.Jump up ^ "The Tyre Prophecy Again". The Skeptical Review. March–April 1999. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
66.Jump up ^ "Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre". CRI/Voice Institute. 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
67.Jump up ^ Herodotus, (II, 177, 1)
68.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Ezekiel 29:1,19.
69.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 94.
70.Jump up ^ "Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book X, chapter 11, first paragraph". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
71.Jump up ^ John Marincola, Classical Association, Greek historians, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pages 37-39. Books.google.com. ISBN 978-0-19-922501-9. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
72.Jump up ^ Frederic Charles Cook, ed. (2006-10-04). "Bible Commentary: Proverbs-Ezekiel—footnote to Ezekiel 29:10-12". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
73.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 62-67
74.Jump up ^ Siegfried Herrmann, A history of Israel in Old Testament times, London, 1981, SCM Press Ltd, page 284.
75.^ Jump up to: a b "Prophecies: Imaginary and fulfilled". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
76.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 84.
77.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; page 1189—introduction to the book of Jonah.
78.Jump up ^ "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise, Farrell Till". Theskepticalreview.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
79.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 32.
80.Jump up ^ Greidanus, Sidney (1999). Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8028-4449-1. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
81.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 17:1
82.Jump up ^ "The Argument from the Bible (1996)". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
83.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 141.
84.Jump up ^ "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel". Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
85.Jump up ^ Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, published by Zondervan, 1985, page 146
86.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 3:18
87.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 552
88.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 30
89.Jump up ^ Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, pages 360-363
90.Jump up ^ John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1986, pages 375-381
91.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 21:1.
92.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 96.
93.Jump up ^ Daniel's First Verse by F.F.Bruce
94.Jump up ^ Claus Schedl, History of the Old Testament, Volume IV, Translation of 'Geschichte des Alten Testaments', Society of St.Paul, Staten Island, New York 10314, 1972, pages 349-350
95.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 88.
96.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 2 Chronicles 36:6
97.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Matthew 11:1.
98.Jump up ^ John A.T., Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, 1976, page 20
99.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28—see last 4 paragraphs
100.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
101.Jump up ^ Riemer, Michael (2000). IT Was At Hand. p. 12.
102.Jump up ^ Garland, Anthony (2007). A Testimony of Jesus Christ—Volume 1. p. 114.
103.Jump up ^ Sproul, RC (1998). The Last Days According to Jesus. p. 156.
104.Jump up ^ Online Interlinear New Testament in Greek—Matthew 26
105.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 137
106.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 139
107.Jump up ^ Witherington, III, The Paul Quest, InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 140
108.Jump up ^ See also 1Cor7:29-31, 15:51-54 andRomans 13:12
109.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 1 Thessalonians 4:15: "Paul includes himself among those who will be present at the parousia: more by aspiration, however, than by conviction."
110.Jump up ^ Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
111.Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.
Further reading[edit]
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books 1995)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G.A. Wells (Prometheus Books 1988)
The Bible unearthed, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Touchstone 2001)
David and Solomon, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Freepress 2006)
The Jesus Mysteries, by T. Freke and P. Gandy (Element 1999)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications 1999)
Not the Impossible Faith, by R. Carrier (Lulu 2009)
BC The archaeology of the Bible lands, by Magnus Magnusson (Bodley Head 1977)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
Why I became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus books 2008)
The greatest show on earth, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2007)
The god delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2010)
101 myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg (Sourcebooks 2000)
Secret origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan (Millennium Press 2002)
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith (Oxford University Press 2001)
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of the Bible
Bible Research —The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems, Internet Infidels website
Examination of the Prophecies —Examination of the Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus by Thomas Paine


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history











Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


























  


Categories: Criticism of the Bible
Criticism of Judaism










Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
فارسی
עברית
Magyar
日本語
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 June 2015, at 03:31.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible










Criticism of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance. For the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document, see Biblical criticism.

Crystal Clear app kedit.svg
 This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (February 2014)
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible


Canons and books
 [show]






















Authorship and development
 [show]












Translations and manuscripts
 [show]














Biblical studies[show]
































Interpretation[show]













Perspectives[hide]

Gnostic ·
 Islamic ·
 Qur'anic

Inerrancy ·
 Infallibility
 Criticism of the Bible

Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
The view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many scholars in the field of biblical criticism. In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, Jews and most Christians discredit the legitimacy of New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.


Contents  [hide]
1 Bible history issues
2 Translation issues
3 Ethics in the Bible
4 Internal consistency
5 The Bible and science
6 The Bible and archaeology
7 Unfulfilled prophecies 7.1 Messianic prophecies
7.2 Prophecies after the event
7.3 The success of Joshua
7.4 The destruction of Tyre
7.5 The protection of the King of Judah
7.6 The death of the king of Judah
7.7 The death of Josiah
7.8 The land promised to Abraham
7.9 The fate of Damascus
7.10 The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt
7.11 The return of Jewish prisoners of war
7.12 The strength of Judah
7.13 The identity of the conquerors of Babylon
7.14 Jehoiakim prophecies
7.15 New Testament 7.15.1 The imminence of the second coming

8 Notable critics
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Bible history issues[edit]



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Main articles: Biblical Criticism and Higher Criticism
The Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles are works considered sacred and authoritative writings by their respective faith groups that revere their specific collections of biblical writings.[1] The Hebrew Bible, upon which the Christian Old Testament is based, was originally composed in Biblical Hebrew, except for parts of Daniel and Ezra that were written in Biblical Aramaic. These writings depict Israelite religion from its beginnings to about the 2nd century BC. The Christian New Testament was written in Koine Greek. (See Language of the New Testament for details.)
At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have doubted that Moses wrote the Torah, but in the late 18th century some liberal scholars began to question his authorship, and by the end of the 19th century some went as far as to claim that as a whole the work was of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to mythic aspects, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense.

While the limits of the canon were effectively set in these early centuries, the status of scripture has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the later church. Increasingly, the biblical works have been subjected to literary and historical criticism in efforts to interpret the texts independent of Church and dogmatic influences. Different views of the authority and inspiration of the Bible also continue to be expressed in liberal and fundamentalist churches today. What cannot be denied, however, is the enormous influence which the stories, poetry, and reflections found in the biblical writings have had, not only on the doctrines and practices of two major faiths, but also on Western culture, its literature, art, and music.[1]
In the 2nd century, the gnostics often claimed that their form of Christianity was the first, and they regarded Jesus as a teacher, or allegory.[2] Elaine Pagels has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles.[citation needed] Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous,[3] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.
Some critics have alleged that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.[4] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus,[5] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Translation issues[edit]
Main articles: Biblical manuscripts, Textual criticism and Biblical inerrancy
Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well-respected but centuries-old copies. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.[6]
Translation has led to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar and word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation as the truly accurate one—for example, the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages.
Because many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is רוח אלהים (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, רוח(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities.[7][8][9][10] Another example is the word used in the Masoretic Text [Isa 7:14] to indicate the woman who would bear Immanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage that uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.
In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.[11]
More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement rejects these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.[12]
Ethics in the Bible[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain moral decisions in the Bible are questioned by many modern groups. Some of the most commonly criticized ethical choices include subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest,[13] toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments,[14] obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Christian Apologists support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be considered from the author's point of view and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments.[15] One example that is often cited is the biblical law of the rebellious son:[16]

"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear." (Deut. 21:18-21)
Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead",[17] have questioned the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.
Internal consistency[edit]
Main article: Internal consistency of the Bible
There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies—such as different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for the same events—have been alleged and presented by critics as difficulties.[18] Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis and theories that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous.[19]:p.47 Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by other authorities that consider the texts to be consistent. Such advocates maintain that the Torah was written by a single source, the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles to have been written by the Apostle Paul.[citation needed]
However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[20] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".[21] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[22] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[23][24]
For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include Mark 16:9-20, i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8, and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".[25][26][27]
Mosaic authorship, authorship of the Gospels and authorship of the Pauline Epistles are topics that remain widely debated.
The Bible and science[edit]
Main article: Science and the Bible
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).


Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies.
Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
[28] Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[29] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise.
Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. (The Bible traces back to Adam's creation around 4000 BCE. There is debate over the 24 hour earth-days in which the earth was created as only on the fourth day were the sun, moon and stars created - without the sun a 24 hour earth-day is impossible. Genesis 1:16-19) This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[30] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[31] Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.[32]

The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.
— Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould
Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.
The Bible and archaeology[edit]
Main articles: The Bible and history and Biblical archaeology
According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever,

"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[33] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[34]
Dever also wrote:

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[35] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[36]
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[37][38]
Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[39] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[39]
Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:

“Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[40]
Unfulfilled prophecies[edit]
See also: Bible prophecy
The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[41]
Messianic prophecies[edit]
See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus
According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[42][43][44] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.
An example of this is Isaiah 7:14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah.[45][46] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[46][47]
Prophecies after the event[edit]
Main articles: Postdiction and Vaticinium ex eventu
An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such as Daniel 11.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]
Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus the Great. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40-55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[55] Whereas Isaiah 1-39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isaiah 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[56]
The success of Joshua[edit]
The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[57] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittite land, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him.
While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[58] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns.[59] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[60][61] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[62][63][64] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal.
The destruction of Tyre[edit]



Tyre harbourEzekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.
Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[65][66] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18).
Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:

It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[67]
The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[68] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:

The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[69]
Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:

Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[70]
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[71] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[72]
The protection of the King of Judah[edit]
Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6).
In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[73]
The death of the king of Judah[edit]
In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jeremiah 34:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 52:9-11), he was put in prison until the day of his death.
Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[74] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed]
The death of Josiah[edit]
Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[75]
Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[76] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[77]



 Map showing the borders of the Promised Land, based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
The land promised to Abraham[edit]
Main article: Promised Land
According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[78]
An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:

David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[79]
Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that

Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[80]
The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16).
The fate of Damascus[edit]
According to Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.
An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War.

The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[81]
The passage is consistent with 2 Kings 16:9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt[edit]
According to Jeremiah 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.[82]
According to apologists, a more thorough examination of the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[83]
The return of Jewish prisoners of war[edit]
Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 27:12-13, Jeremiah 3:18, Jeremiah 31:1-23, and Jeremiah 33:7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[84] Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.
Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.
Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[85] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon.[86] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[87] The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[88]
The strength of Judah[edit]
Isaiah 19:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened.
According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[89][90]
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon[edit]
Isaiah 13:17, Isaiah 21:2, Jeremiah 51:11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.
Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[91] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.

Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[92]
Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31.
Jehoiakim prophecies[edit]
The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died.
Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[93]
Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (Jeremiah 22:18-19, Jeremiah 36:30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".
Apologists proposal for a partial solution:

In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, Adar, Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18-year old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[94]
Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[95] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2[96] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear.
Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[75]
Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.
The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[97] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
New Testament[edit]



 The Wailing Wall by night. According to Luke 19:41-44: As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.
Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the Second Temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard,) still remains.
In reply, John Robinson writes that

it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[98]
The imminence of the second coming[edit]
See also: Second coming
Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)

(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)
It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[99] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[100] Note, however, that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse Dispensationalism.[101][102][103] Furthermore it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄψεσθε" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[104] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.
This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)

Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.
Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.

We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[105]

...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[106]
In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[107]
The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
[108]

The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:

Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this lie. When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese—they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate.
The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this.[109] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).
Notable critics[edit]
Isaac Asimov
Richard Dawkins
Albert Einstein [110]
Christopher Hitchens
Robert G. Ingersoll[111]
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Mark Twain
Voltaire
See also[edit]
Bible conspiracy theory
Criticism of the Book of Mormon
Criticism of the Talmud
Criticism of the Qur'an
Christ myth theory
Misquoting Jesus
Tahrif
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Bible." The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. West Chiltington: Crystal Reference, 2005. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
2.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford. pp. 122–123, 185. ISBN 0-19-514183-0.
3.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. pp. 372–3. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 621, 639, 654. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. Scholars who hold to Pauline authorship include Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 622.
4.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth hypothesis: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
5.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
6.Jump up ^ "Bible." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
7.Jump up ^ The Bible in the Syriac tradition, Sebastian P. Brock, p. 13
8.Jump up ^ God's conflict with the dragon and the sea: echoes of a Canaanite myth, John Day
9.Jump up ^ Understanding Biblical Israel: a reexamination of the origins of monotheism, Stanley Ned Rosenbaum
10.Jump up ^ The Jewish religion: a companion By Louis Jacobs, p. 251
11.Jump up ^ Exod. 20:14, 1631 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
12.Jump up ^ Eric Pement, Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate online.
13.Jump up ^ Genesis 19:30-36
14.Jump up ^ "How Can We Trust a Bible that Tolerated Slavery?" Discovery Series, RBC Ministries. July 27, 2009.
15.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
16.Jump up ^ Schulweis, Harold M. (2009). Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights. pp. 28–30. ISBN 1-58023-419-4.
17.Jump up ^ Saugstad, Andreas. "Nietzsche & Christianity" July 28, 2009.
18.Jump up ^ "Contradictions from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible". Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
19.Jump up ^ Knight, George William, Howard Marshall, and W. Ward Gasque. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). William. B. Eerdmans, 1997. ISBN 0-8028-2395-5 / 9780802823953
20.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
21.Jump up ^ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.
22.Jump up ^ Sanders, Ed Parish (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. p. 85. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
23.Jump up ^ Hurtado, Larry W. (June 2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 319. ISBN 0-8028-6070-2.
24.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
25.Jump up ^ The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, by Guy D. Nave, pg 194 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=4CGScYTomYsC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=ex8JIDMwMD&sig=oCI_C1mXVSZYoz34sVlgRDaO__Q&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
26.Jump up ^ The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism, by John Shelby Spong, Christian Century September 26, 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256
27.Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg175 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=B2lfhy5lvlkC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=vp5GVlmghC&sig=XN1KJCsBkTWO2Fot4SBhnpWoRkY&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
28.Jump up ^ Driscoll, J.F. (1909). "Firmament". In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 26 May 2008 from New Advent. ("That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages...").
29.Jump up ^ The Galileo Controversy at Catholic Answers
30.Jump up ^ http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
31.Jump up ^ "Cosmic Detectives". The European Space Agency (ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
32.Jump up ^ Barbara Bradley Hagerty (August 9, 2011). "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve". All Things Considered.
33.Jump up ^ Bible gets a reality check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle
34.Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008
35.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
36.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
37.Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126
38.Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
39.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem
40.Jump up ^ Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007
41.Jump up ^ Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur. Reasons We Believe. Crossway, 2008. ISBN 1-4335-0146-5 / 9781433501463. Aug. 6, 2009: [2]
42.Jump up ^ Why did the majority of the Jewish world reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why did the first Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Shraga Simmons (about.com)
43.Jump up ^ Michoel Drazin (1990). Their Hollow Inheritance. A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries. Gefen Publishing House, Ltd. ISBN 965-229-070-X.
44.Jump up ^ Troki, Isaac. "Faith Strengthened".
45.Jump up ^ Glaser, Zhava. "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" Issues—A Messianic Jewish Perspective. July 30, 2009.
46.^ Jump up to: a b "The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14". Messiahtruth.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
47.Jump up ^ Why do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth? The Second Jewish Book Of Why p.66 by Alfred J. Kolatch 1985
48.Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
49.Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.
50.Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. v.2 955–6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.
51.Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7.
52.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-541949-8.
53.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
54.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert J. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.
55.Jump up ^ Simon John De Vries: From old Revelation to new: a tradition-historical and redaction-critical study of temporal transitions in prophetic prediction. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1995, ISBN 978-0-8028-0683-3, p. 126
56.Jump up ^ Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard: Mercer dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press 1990, ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7, p. 414
57.Jump up ^ Joshua 1:1-9
58.Jump up ^ Joshua 15:63
59.Jump up ^ Joshua 17:12-13
60.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 19.
61.Jump up ^ Judges 3:5-6
62.Jump up ^ Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians, Ann E. Killebrew, pp. 152-154, 2005
63.Jump up ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 1136
64.Jump up ^ The Old Testament world, By John Rogerson, Philip R. Davies, 1989, p. 358
65.Jump up ^ "The Tyre Prophecy Again". The Skeptical Review. March–April 1999. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
66.Jump up ^ "Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre". CRI/Voice Institute. 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
67.Jump up ^ Herodotus, (II, 177, 1)
68.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Ezekiel 29:1,19.
69.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 94.
70.Jump up ^ "Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book X, chapter 11, first paragraph". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
71.Jump up ^ John Marincola, Classical Association, Greek historians, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pages 37-39. Books.google.com. ISBN 978-0-19-922501-9. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
72.Jump up ^ Frederic Charles Cook, ed. (2006-10-04). "Bible Commentary: Proverbs-Ezekiel—footnote to Ezekiel 29:10-12". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
73.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 62-67
74.Jump up ^ Siegfried Herrmann, A history of Israel in Old Testament times, London, 1981, SCM Press Ltd, page 284.
75.^ Jump up to: a b "Prophecies: Imaginary and fulfilled". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
76.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 84.
77.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; page 1189—introduction to the book of Jonah.
78.Jump up ^ "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise, Farrell Till". Theskepticalreview.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
79.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 32.
80.Jump up ^ Greidanus, Sidney (1999). Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8028-4449-1. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
81.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 17:1
82.Jump up ^ "The Argument from the Bible (1996)". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
83.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 141.
84.Jump up ^ "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel". Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
85.Jump up ^ Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, published by Zondervan, 1985, page 146
86.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 3:18
87.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 552
88.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 30
89.Jump up ^ Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, pages 360-363
90.Jump up ^ John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1986, pages 375-381
91.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 21:1.
92.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 96.
93.Jump up ^ Daniel's First Verse by F.F.Bruce
94.Jump up ^ Claus Schedl, History of the Old Testament, Volume IV, Translation of 'Geschichte des Alten Testaments', Society of St.Paul, Staten Island, New York 10314, 1972, pages 349-350
95.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 88.
96.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 2 Chronicles 36:6
97.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Matthew 11:1.
98.Jump up ^ John A.T., Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, 1976, page 20
99.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28—see last 4 paragraphs
100.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
101.Jump up ^ Riemer, Michael (2000). IT Was At Hand. p. 12.
102.Jump up ^ Garland, Anthony (2007). A Testimony of Jesus Christ—Volume 1. p. 114.
103.Jump up ^ Sproul, RC (1998). The Last Days According to Jesus. p. 156.
104.Jump up ^ Online Interlinear New Testament in Greek—Matthew 26
105.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 137
106.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 139
107.Jump up ^ Witherington, III, The Paul Quest, InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 140
108.Jump up ^ See also 1Cor7:29-31, 15:51-54 andRomans 13:12
109.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 1 Thessalonians 4:15: "Paul includes himself among those who will be present at the parousia: more by aspiration, however, than by conviction."
110.Jump up ^ Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
111.Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.
Further reading[edit]
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books 1995)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G.A. Wells (Prometheus Books 1988)
The Bible unearthed, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Touchstone 2001)
David and Solomon, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Freepress 2006)
The Jesus Mysteries, by T. Freke and P. Gandy (Element 1999)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications 1999)
Not the Impossible Faith, by R. Carrier (Lulu 2009)
BC The archaeology of the Bible lands, by Magnus Magnusson (Bodley Head 1977)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
Why I became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus books 2008)
The greatest show on earth, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2007)
The god delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2010)
101 myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg (Sourcebooks 2000)
Secret origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan (Millennium Press 2002)
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith (Oxford University Press 2001)
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of the Bible
Bible Research —The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems, Internet Infidels website
Examination of the Prophecies —Examination of the Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus by Thomas Paine


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history











Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


























  


Categories: Criticism of the Bible
Criticism of Judaism










Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
فارسی
עברית
Magyar
日本語
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 June 2015, at 03:31.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible










Hate speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[hide]
Bumfights ·
 Blood libel ·
 Class conflict ·
 Compulsory sterilization ·
 Counterjihad ·
 Cultural genocide ·
 Democide ·
 Disability hate crime ·
 Economic ·
 Eliminationism ·
 Employment ·
 Enemy of the people ·
 Ethnic cleansing ·
 Ethnic joke ·
 Ethnocide ·
 Forced conversion ·
 Freak show ·
 Gay bashing ·
 Gendercide ·
 Genital Mutilation ·
 Genocide (examples) ·
 Group libel ·
 Hate crime ·
 Hate group ·
 Hate speech ·
 Homeless dumping ·
 Housing ·
 Indian rolling ·
 LGBT hate crime ·
 Lavender Scare ·
 Lynching ·
 McCarthyism ·
 Mortgage ·
 Name and shame ·
 Murder Music ·
 Occupational segregation ·
 Pogrom ·
 Purge ·
 Race war ·
 Red Scare ·
 Religious persecution ·
 Scapegoating ·
 Segregation academies ·
 Sex-selective abortion ·
 Slavery ·
 Slut-shaming ·
 Trans-bashing ·
 Victimization ·
 Wife selling ·
 Witch-hunt ·
 White Flight
 

Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet as well as hate speech in general.
Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]


Contents  [hide]
1 International 1.1 Enforcement of hate speech laws
1.2 Harm of hate speech
1.3 Hate speech on Facebook
2 By country 2.1 Australia
2.2 Belgium
2.3 Brazil
2.4 Canada
2.5 Chile
2.6 Council of Europe
2.7 Croatia
2.8 Denmark
2.9 Finland
2.10 France
2.11 Germany
2.12 Iceland
2.13 India
2.14 Indonesia
2.15 Ireland
2.16 Japan
2.17 Jordan
2.18 Netherlands
2.19 New Zealand
2.20 Norway
2.21 Poland
2.22 Serbia
2.23 Singapore
2.24 South Africa
2.25 Sweden
2.26 Switzerland
2.27 United Kingdom
2.28 United States 2.28.1 Constitutional framework
2.28.2 Supreme Court case law
2.28.3 Societal implementation
2.28.4 NTIA report
2.28.5 Hate speech in media

3 See also
4 References
5 External links

International[edit]
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".[10] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.[11] On 3 May 2011, Michael O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of "hate speech" do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20.[12] Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[13]
Enforcement of hate speech laws[edit]
Hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those that are designed for public order and those that are designed to protect human dignity. Those designed to protect public order seem to be somewhat ineffective because they are rarely enforced. For example, in Northern Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty one years. Those meant to protect human dignity, however, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands seem to be frequently enforced.[14]
Harm of hate speech[edit]
Communication theory provides some insight into the harms caused by hate speech. According to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions allow minorities to be categorized with negative attributes tied to them, and are directly harmful to them. Matsuda et al. (1993) found that racist speech could cause in the recipient of the message direct physical and emotional changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the subordination of these minorities. This has been enough to sway the court in previous cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in USA, in which the Court stated that segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their [African Americans’] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination is supported by scholarly evidence.[15]
Hate speech on Facebook[edit]
Following a campaign that involved the participation of Women, Action and the Media, the Everyday Sexism Project and the activist Soraya Chemaly, who were among 100 advocacy groups, Facebook agreed to update its policy on hate speech. The campaign highlighted content that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women, and used over 57,000 tweets and more than 4,900 emails to create outcomes such as the withdrawal of advertising from Facebook by 15 companies, including Nissan UK, House of Burlesque, and Nationwide UK. The social media website initially responded by stating that "While it may be vulgar and offensive, distasteful content on its own does not violate our policies",[16] but then agreed to take action on May 29, 2013, after it had "become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate."[17]
By country[edit]
Australia[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in Australia
Australia's hate speech laws vary by jurisdiction, and seek especially to prevent victimisation on account of race.
Belgium[edit]
Main articles: Belgian Anti-Racism Law and Belgian Holocaust denial law
The Belgian Anti-Racism Law, in full, the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts inspired by Racism or Xenophobia, is a law against hate speech and discrimination passed by the Federal Parliament of Belgium in 1981 which made certain acts motivated by racism or xenophobia illegal. It is also known as the Moureaux Law.
The Belgian Holocaust denial law, passed on 23 March 1995, bans public Holocaust denial. Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly "deny, play down, justify or approve of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War". Prosecution is led by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines of up to 2500 EUR.
Brazil[edit]
In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".[18]
Canada[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in Canada
In Canada, advocating genocide[19] or inciting hatred[20] against any "identifiable group" is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation". It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
Chile[edit]
Article 31 of the "Ley sobre Libertades de Opinión e Información y Ejercicio del Periodismo" (statute on freedom of opinion and information and the performance of journalism), punishes with a high fine those who “through any means of social communication makes publications or transmissions intended to promote hatred or hostility towards persons or a group of persons due to their race, sex, religion or nationality".[21] This norm has been applied to expressions proffered through the internet.[22] There is also a rule aggravating the penalties of crimes when they are motivated by discriminatory hatred.
Council of Europe[edit]
The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The ECtHR does not offer an accepted definition for "hate speech" but instead offers only parameters by which prosecutors can decide if the "hate speech" is entitled to the protection of freedom of speech.[23]
The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.
Croatia[edit]
The Croatian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Croatian penal code prohibits and punishes anyone "who based on differences of race, religion, language, political or any other belief, wealth, birth, education, social status or other properties, gender, skin color, nationality or ethnicity violates basic human rights and freedoms recognized from international community".[24]
Denmark[edit]
Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements by which a group is threatened (trues), insulted (forhånes) or degraded (nedværdiges) due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[25]
Finland[edit]
There has been considerable debate over the definition of "hate speech" (vihapuhe) in the Finnish language.[26][27]
If "hate speech" is taken to mean ethnic agitation, it is prohibited in Finland and defined in the section 11 of the penal code, War crimes and crimes against humanity, as publishing data, an opinion or other statement that threatens or insults a group on basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or any comparable basis. Ethnic agitation is punishable with a fine or up to 2 years in prison, or 4 months to 4 years if aggravated (such as incitement to genocide).[28]
Critics claim that, in political contexts, labeling certain opinions and statements "hate speech" can be used to silence unfavorable or critical opinions and play down debate. Certain politicians, including Member of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho, consider the term "hate speech" problematic because of the lack of an easy definition.[27]
France[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in France
France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).[29]
Germany[edit]
In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment.[citation needed]Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders".[citation needed]Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g., the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
Iceland[edit]
In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (In this context "assault" does not refer to physical violence but only to verbal "assault".)
India[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in India
Freedom of speech and expression is protected by article 19 (1) of the constitution of India, but under article 19(2) "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of "the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence".[30]
Indonesia[edit]
Indonesia has been a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 2006, but has not promulgated comprehensive legislation against hate-speech crimes. Calls for a comprehensive anti-hate-speech law and associated educational program have followed statements by a leader of a hard-line Islamic organization that Balinese Hindus were mustering forces to protect the "lascivious Miss World pageant" in “a war against Islam" and that "those who fight on the path of Allah are promised heaven". The statements are said to be an example of similar messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques throughout the country by fundamentalist clerics.[31]
Ireland[edit]
In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i), however, this is only an implied right provided that liberty of expression "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State".[32] The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation".[33][34]
Japan[edit]
Japanese law covers threats and slander, but it "does not apply to hate speech against general groups of people".[35] Japan became a member of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1995. Article 4 of the convention sets forth provisions calling for the criminalization of hate speech. But the Japanese government has suspended the provisions, saying actions to spread or promote the idea of racial discrimination have not been taken in Japan to such an extent that legal action is necessary. The Foreign Ministry says that this assessment remains unchanged.[36]
In May 2013, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) warned the Japanese government that it needs to take measures to curb hate speech against so-called "comfort women", or Asian women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II. The committee's recommendation called for the Japanese government to better educate Japanese society on the plight of women who were forced into sexual slavery to prevent stigmatization, and to take necessary measures to repair the lasting effects of exploitation, including addressing their right to compensation.[37][38]
In 2013, following demonstrations, parades, and comments posted on the Internet threatening violence against foreign residents of Japan, especially Koreans, there are concerns that hate speech is a growing problem in Japan.[39][40][41] Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Justice Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki have expressed concerns about the raise in hate speech, saying that it "goes completely against the nation's dignity", but so far have stopped short of proposing any legal action against protesters.[36]
On 22 September 2013 around 2,000 people participated in the "March on Tokyo for Freedom" campaigning against recent hate speech marches. Participants called on the Japanese government to "sincerely adhere" to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Sexual minorities and the disabled also participated in the march.[42]
On 25 September 2013 a new organization, "An international network overcoming hate speech and racism" (Norikoenet), that is opposed to hate speech against ethnic Koreans and other minorities in Japan was launched.[43]
On 7 October 2013, in a rare ruling on racial discrimination against ethnic Koreans, a Japanese court ordered an anti-Korean group, Zaitokukai, to stop "hate speech" protests against a Korean school in Kyoto and pay the school 12.26 million yen ($126,400 U.S.) in compensation for protests that took place in 2009 and 2010.[44][45]
A United Nations panel urged Japan to ban hate speech.[46][47][48]
Jordan[edit]
See also: Blasphemy law in Jordan
Several Jordanian laws seek to prevent the publication or dissemination of material that would provoke strife or hatred:[49]
Article 6 of Act No. 76 of 2009 regulating publicity and advertising in municipal areas states: (a) The following shall be deemed an infringement of this regulation: (i) The inclusion in publicity or advertisements of material that offends national or religious sentiment or public morals or that is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The publicization of ideas based on racial superiority, racial hatred and the instigation of racial discrimination against any person or group constitute punishable offences.
Article 20 of the Audiovisual Media Act No. 71 of 2002 states: “The licensee shall not broadcast or rebroadcast any material that is likely to provoke confessional and interethnic strife, to undermine national unity or to instigate terrorism, racism or religious intolerance or to damage domestic relations in the Kingdom.”
Article 7 of the Printing and Publications Act No. 8 of 1998 sets out the ethical rules that apply to journalism and the conduct of journalists. It is illegal to publish material likely to stir up hatred or to make propaganda with a view to setting citizens against one another.
Article 40(a)(iv) of the Print and Publications Act No. 10 of 1993 states that it is prohibited to publish articles that are likely to jeopardize national unity, incite others to commit crimes, stir up hostility, and foment hatred, division and discord between members of society.
Netherlands[edit]
The Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal code is as follows:
Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[50]
Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[51]
In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, for breaching articles 137c and 137d.[52] On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges.[53]
New Zealand[edit]
New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons". Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
Norway[edit]
Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual orientation, religion or philosophy of life.[54] At the same time, the Norwegian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, and there has been an ongoing public and judicial debate over where the right balance between the ban against hate speech and the right to free speech lies. Norwegian courts have been restrictive in the use of the hate speech law and only few persons have been sentenced for violating the law since its implementation in 1970. A public Free Speech committee (1996-1999) recommended to abolish the hate speech law but the Norwegian Parliament instead voted to slightly strengthen it.[55]
Poland[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in Poland
The hate speech laws in Poland punish those who offend the feelings of the religious by e.g. disturbing a religious ceremony or creating public calumny. They also prohibit public expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation.[56]
Serbia[edit]
The Serbian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but restricts it in certain cases to protect human rights. The criminal charge of "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" carries a minimum six months prison term and a maximum of ten years.[57]
Singapore[edit]
Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. The Penal Code criminalizes the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion. It also makes it an offence for anyone to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.
South Africa[edit]
In South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 contains the following clause:

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―
a.be hurtful;
b.be harmful or to incite harm;
c.promote or propagate hatred.[58]
The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another")[59] may also be used to prosecute hate speech.[60]
In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)", a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred.[61]
Sweden[edit]
Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith, or sexual orientation.[62][63] The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.[64] There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights.[65] The crime is called Hets mot folkgrupp in Swedish which directly translated can be translated to Incitement (of hatred/violence) towards population groups.
The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,[66] was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke Green of hate speech based on a 2003 sermon. His conviction was later overturned.[65][67]
Switzerland[edit]
In Switzerland public discrimination or invoking to rancor against persons or a group of people because of their race, ethnicity, is getting penalized with a term of imprisonment until 3 years or a mulct. In 1934, the authorities of the Basel-Stadt canton criminalized anti-Jewish hate speech, e.g., the accusation of ritual murders, mostly in reaction against a pro-nazi antisemitic group and newspaper, the Volksbund.[68]
United Kingdom[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[3][69][70][71][72][73][74] Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches[citation needed], does not criminalise jokes about peoples’ beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.[75]
United States[edit]
Constitutional framework[edit]
The 1789 Constitution of the United States of America dealt only with the three heads of power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the last four articles. The protection of civil rights was not written into the original Constitution but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although this section is written only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch), the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, works to extend this prohibition to laws of the states as well.
Some state constitutions also have a "free speech" provision, most notably, California.[76]
Supreme Court case law[edit]
Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[77]
Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[78]
This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[79] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[80] The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.
In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [81]
Societal implementation[edit]
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[82][83]
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[84] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[85] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[86]
NTIA report[edit]
In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. Study findings revealed only a few instances during the past decade in which broadcast facilities were used to spread messages of hate and bigotry. In two such instances, radio broadcasts arguably urged an audience to commit hate-motivated crimes. In other instances, radio broadcast licensees aired programming that evidenced prejudice. A few highly publicized cable television programs promoted messages of hate and bigotry. In some cases, cable programming stirred community reaction and was followed by counterprogramming. During the 1980s, computer bulletin boards were established by various white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, but many fell into disuse later in the decade. The study also found that hate "hotlines" are used to deliver recorded messages of bigotry and prejudice and that telephones can be used to intimidate, threaten, and harass individuals and organizations. NTIA's research suggests that hate messages represent a very small percentage of electronic communications media and that the best response is public education rather than government censorship and regulation. Legal remedies involving the use of telecommunications to commit or encourage hate crimes are discussed, as well as technologies that can protect or empower targets of hate speech.[87] A list of commenters is appended.
In 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”. This report gave one of the first definitions by government on hate speech.[citation needed] According to NTIA hate speech is:
Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.
Hate speech in media[edit]
In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC),[88] a nonprofit organization with a mission to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a three prong strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[89] The petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center (CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study” was also released in January 2009.[90][91]
“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.
False facts
Flawed argumentation
Divisive language
Dehumanizing metaphors
In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.[92] Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.
See also[edit]
Allport's scale
Anti-LGBT slogans
Ethnic intolerance (disambiguation)
Ethnic joke
Gay bashing
Gregory Stanton's 8 Stages of Genocide
Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese
Hate mail
Historical revisionism (negationism)
Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
Personal attack
Political correctness
Race baiting
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Definitions for "hate speech", Dictionary.com. Retrieved 25 June 2011
2.Jump up ^ Nockleby, John T. (2000), “Hate Speech,” in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, vol. 3. (2nd ed.), Detroit: Macmillan Reference US, pp. 1277-1279. Cited in "Library 2.0 and the Problem of Hate Speech," by Margaret Brown-Sica and Jeffrey Beall, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, vol. 9 no. 2 (Summer 2008).
3.^ Jump up to: a b Criminal Justice Act 2003
4.Jump up ^ An Activist's Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles; p125 by Yogyakarta Principles in Action
5.Jump up ^ Kinney, Terry A. (2008). "Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms". The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Reference Online. doi:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
6.Jump up ^ Uslegal.com: Hate speech Retrieved 31 July 2012
7.Jump up ^ UK-USA: The British Character of America
8.Jump up ^ "The PCspeak of Diversity". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "George Orwell meets the OIC". Human Events. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
10.Jump up ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20
11.Jump up ^ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 4
12.Jump up ^ Paragraph 54 of "Draft general comment No. 34", UN Human Rights Committee Hundredth and first session, 3 May 2011
13.Jump up ^ Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the use of the Internet for purposes of incitement to racial hatred, racist propaganda and xenophobia, and on ways of promoting international cooperation in this area, Preparatory Committee for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, United Nations, 27 April 2001
14.Jump up ^ Bell, Jeannine (Summer 2009). "Restraining the heartless: racist speech and minority rights.". Indiana Law Journal 84: 963–979. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
15.Jump up ^ Calvert, Clay (1997). "Hate Speech and its Harms: A Communication Theory Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Communication 47: 4–19. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02690.x. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
16.Jump up ^ Sara C Nelson (28 May 2013). "#FBrape: Will Facebook Heed Open Letter Protesting 'Endorsement Of Rape & Domestic Violence'?". The Huffington Post UK. Retrieved 29 May 2013.
17.Jump up ^ Rory Carroll (29 May 2013). "Facebook gives way to campaign against hate speech on its pages". The Guardian UK. Retrieved 29 May 2013.
18.Jump up ^ "1988 Constitution made racism a crime with no right to bail", Folha de São Paulo, 15 April 2005.
19.Jump up ^ "Advocating genocide", R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sec. 318, Criminal Code of Canada
20.Jump up ^ "Public incitement of hatred" and "Wilful promotion of hatred", R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sec. 319, Criminal Code of Canada
21.Jump up ^ "Alvaro Paúl Díaz, The Criminalization of Hate Speech in Chile in Light of Comparative Case Law (IN SPANISH), Rev. chil. derecho, 2011, vol.38, n.3, pp. 573-609.". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
22.Jump up ^ "Alvaro Paul Díaz, The Criminalization of Hate Speech in Chile in Light of Comparative Case Law (IN SPANISH), Rev. chil. derecho, 2011, vol.38, n.3, pp. 573-609.". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
23.Jump up ^ Sharon, Alina Dain (February 28, 2013). "A Web of Hate: European, U.S. Laws Clash on Defining and Policing Online Anti-Semitism". Algemeiner Journal.
24.Jump up ^ Article 174. of Croatian penal code on Croatian Wikisource
25.Jump up ^ Danish Penal code, Straffeloven, section 266 B.
26.Jump up ^ "TV2:n Vihaillassa ei päästy yksimielisyyteen vihapuhe-käsitteestä". Helsing Sanomat (in Finnish). 20 September 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
27.^ Jump up to: a b "Vihapuheen määritelmästä ei yksimielisyyttä". YLE Uutiset (in Finnish) (YLE). 21 September 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
28.Jump up ^ Finnish Penal code Rikoslaki/Strafflagen Chapter 11, section 10 Ethnic agitation / Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan
29.Jump up ^ Loi 90-615 du 13 juillet 1990
30.Jump up ^ Constitution of India
31.Jump up ^ "Hard-Liners Targeting Miss World in Bali Shows Need for Anti-Hate-Speech Law in Indonesia", Johannes Nugroho, Jakarta Globe, 23 September 2013. Retrieved 29 September 2013.
32.Jump up ^ "Bunreacht na hEireann Fundamental Rights". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
33.Jump up ^ "Irish Statute Book Database". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
34.Jump up ^ "Dublin Bus driver convicted of incitement to hatred". RTE.ie. 22 September 2000. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
35.Jump up ^ "Foreign correspondents share opinions on Japanese hate speech marches"[dead link], The Mainichi, 10 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
36.^ Jump up to: a b "Justice minister criticizes hate speech in Japan but won't punish offenders", The Asahi Shimbun, 10 May 2013.
37.Jump up ^ "UN group urges Tokyo to curb hate speech", Sarah Kim, Korea JoongAng Daily, 24 May 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
38.Jump up ^ "C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations", Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Japan, adopted by the Committee at its fiftieth session, 29 April-17 May 2013 (E/C.12/JPN/CO/3), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Economic and Social Council, United Nations, 10 June 2013. "26. The Committee is concerned about the lasting negative effects of the exploitation to which 'comfort women' were subjected on their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and their entitlement to reparation (arts. 11 and 3). The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary measures to address the lasting effects of the exploitation and to guarantee the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by 'comfort women'. The Committee also recommends that the State party educate the public on the exploitation of 'comfort women' so as to prevent hate speech and other manifestations of hatred that stigmatize them."
39.Jump up ^ "Politicians silent on curbing hate speech", Eric Johnston, Japan Times, 10 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
40.Jump up ^ "Japan conservatives: 'Hate speech goes too far' ", Julian Ryall, Deutsche Welle, 9 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
41.Jump up ^ "No place for hate speech", Japan Times, 5 June 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
42.Jump up ^ "Anti-hate speech march fills streets around Shinjuku", The Mainichi, 23 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
43.Jump up ^ "Anti-hate speech group launched in Japan", The Mainichi, 26 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
44.Jump up ^ "Japan court in Korean discrimination ruling", BBC News, 7 October 2013. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
45.Jump up ^ "Kyoto court bans 'hate speech' around school for ethnic Koreans", Gakushi Fujiwara, The Asahi Shimbun, 7 October 2013. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
46.Jump up ^ "Hate speech rallies spreading across Japan". AJW by The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
47.Jump up ^ "U.N. panel urges Japan to enact law to prohibit hate speech". AJW by The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
48.Jump up ^ "U.N. panel urges Japan to regulate hate speech by law". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
49.Jump up ^ "Jordan, Combined reports submitted for 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007", Reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United Nations, 21 September 2011, accessed 13 September 2012
50.Jump up ^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code - article 137c
51.Jump up ^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code - article 137d
52.Jump up ^ "BBC report on Geert Wilders". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
53.Jump up ^ "Geert Wilders cleared of hate charges by Dutch court". BBC News. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
54.Jump up ^ "Norwegian Penal code, Straffeloven, section 135 a.". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
55.Jump up ^ Sindre Bangstad: diskriminerende ytringer Store norske leksikon (Norwegian), retrieved 25 April 2013
56.Jump up ^ Venice Commission (2008). "Analysis of the Domestic Law Concerning Blasphemy, Religious Insult and Inciting Religious Hatred in Albania, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom on the Basis of Replies to a Questionnaire" (PDF). Council of Europe. Retrieved 14 May 2010.[dead link]
57.Jump up ^ Serbian Penal code, section 317.
58.Jump up ^ Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000, s. 10(1).
59.Jump up ^ Clark, DM (2003). South African Law Reform Commission Issue Paper 22 Project 130: Stalking. South African Law Commission. ISBN 0-621-34410-9.
60.Jump up ^ Hanti, Otto (9 August 2006). "Man fined after racial slur to top judge". IOL. Retrieved 10 July 2007.
61.Jump up ^ Benesch, Susan. "Words as Weapons". World Policy Journal (Spring 2012). Retrieved 31 May 2012.
62.Jump up ^ Swedish Penal code, Brottsbalken, chapter 16, section 8.
63.Jump up ^ The Swedish Penal Code (English), chapter 16, section 8
64.Jump up ^ Proposition 2001/02:59, Hets mot folkgrupp, m.m., chapter 5
65.^ Jump up to: a b Judgment of the Supreme Court of Sweden in the Åke Green case[dead link]
66.Jump up ^ Lag om hets mot folkgrupp innefattar homosexuella[dead link]
67.Jump up ^ "The Local, 29 Nov 2005: Åke Green cleared over gay sermon". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
68.Jump up ^ "Basel verbiete jede Diffamierung von Juden und Judentum" (PDF) (in German). Vienna: Die Stimme - Jüdische Zeitung. 14 December 1934. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
69.Jump up ^ Public Order Act 1986
70.Jump up ^ Text of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
71.Jump up ^ Text of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
72.Jump up ^ Text of the Amendment to Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
73.Jump up ^ Text of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (England and Wales) as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
74.Jump up ^ Text of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
75.Jump up ^ "Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill". The Scottish Parliament. Retrieved 31 August 2013.
76.Jump up ^ see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, notable for the "positive liberty" interpretation.
77.Jump up ^ Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942)
78.Jump up ^ Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, at 447 (1969)
79.Jump up ^ R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), 505 U.S. 377
80.Jump up ^ It should be noted that SCOTUS will uphold a law that punishes hate violence as an aggravating factor in the normal sentencing guidelines. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) a gang of black youths beat up a white teenager because he was white. The Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin law that considering the hate based crime in an assault as an aggravating factor is not in contravention of the first amendment.
81.Jump up ^ "Facts and Case Summary: Snyder v. Phelps". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
82.Jump up ^ Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
83.Jump up ^ See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).
84.Jump up ^ "Free speech on public college campuses", Kermit L. Hall, First Amendment Center, 13 September 2002
85.Jump up ^ See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995).
86.Jump up ^ "Harassment policies in the university", Alan Charles Kors, Society, vol.28, no.4 (May/June 1991), pp.22-30, Springer, ISSN:0147-2011 (Print), ISSN:1936-4725 (Online)
87.Jump up ^ Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes, Report to Congress, J L Gattuso; B Harris; C E Mattey; C A Nila; and T Sloan, NCJ 157948, National Telecommunication and Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce, 1993, 84 pp.]
88.Jump up ^ National Hispanic Media Coalition, website. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
89.Jump up ^ National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) Petition for Inquiry in the Matter of Hate Speech in the Media, before the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 28 January 2009
90.Jump up ^ “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study”, January 2009
91.Jump up ^ "Hate Speech in the Media", a funded project of the Social Science Research Council, Primary Investigators: Chon A. Noriega and Francisco Javier Iribarren, University of California-Los Angeles, in partnership with the National Hispanic Media Coalition
92.Jump up ^ Comments of the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), in the matter of Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age (GN docket no. 10-25), before the US Federal Communications Commission, 7 May 2010
External links[edit]
TANDIS (Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Information System), developed by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
Reconciling Rights and Responsibilities of Colleges and Students: Offensive Speech, Assembly, Drug Testing and Safety
From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in Higher Education
Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Survivor bashing - bias motivated hate crimes
"Striking the right balance" by Agnès Callamard Article 19
Hate speech, a factsheet by the European Court of Human Rights, 2013
Recommendation No. R (97) 20 Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1997


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Censorship
















Example of redaction on (a copy of) a document









































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Racism

































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Internet censorship by country





















































































































































































  


Categories: Censorship
Human rights abuses
Prejudice and discrimination
Sexual orientation and society
Philosophical concepts
Political philosophy
Hate crime
Hate speech
Freedom of speech
Political correctness
Ethically disputed political practices














Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Afrikaans
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Íslenska
עברית
Latina
Magyar
Македонски
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 June 2015, at 20:37.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech













Hate speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[hide]
Bumfights ·
 Blood libel ·
 Class conflict ·
 Compulsory sterilization ·
 Counterjihad ·
 Cultural genocide ·
 Democide ·
 Disability hate crime ·
 Economic ·
 Eliminationism ·
 Employment ·
 Enemy of the people ·
 Ethnic cleansing ·
 Ethnic joke ·
 Ethnocide ·
 Forced conversion ·
 Freak show ·
 Gay bashing ·
 Gendercide ·
 Genital Mutilation ·
 Genocide (examples) ·
 Group libel ·
 Hate crime ·
 Hate group ·
 Hate speech ·
 Homeless dumping ·
 Housing ·
 Indian rolling ·
 LGBT hate crime ·
 Lavender Scare ·
 Lynching ·
 McCarthyism ·
 Mortgage ·
 Name and shame ·
 Murder Music ·
 Occupational segregation ·
 Pogrom ·
 Purge ·
 Race war ·
 Red Scare ·
 Religious persecution ·
 Scapegoating ·
 Segregation academies ·
 Sex-selective abortion ·
 Slavery ·
 Slut-shaming ·
 Trans-bashing ·
 Victimization ·
 Wife selling ·
 Witch-hunt ·
 White Flight
 

Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet as well as hate speech in general.
Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]


Contents  [hide]
1 International 1.1 Enforcement of hate speech laws
1.2 Harm of hate speech
1.3 Hate speech on Facebook
2 By country 2.1 Australia
2.2 Belgium
2.3 Brazil
2.4 Canada
2.5 Chile
2.6 Council of Europe
2.7 Croatia
2.8 Denmark
2.9 Finland
2.10 France
2.11 Germany
2.12 Iceland
2.13 India
2.14 Indonesia
2.15 Ireland
2.16 Japan
2.17 Jordan
2.18 Netherlands
2.19 New Zealand
2.20 Norway
2.21 Poland
2.22 Serbia
2.23 Singapore
2.24 South Africa
2.25 Sweden
2.26 Switzerland
2.27 United Kingdom
2.28 United States 2.28.1 Constitutional framework
2.28.2 Supreme Court case law
2.28.3 Societal implementation
2.28.4 NTIA report
2.28.5 Hate speech in media

3 See also
4 References
5 External links

International[edit]
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".[10] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.[11] On 3 May 2011, Michael O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of "hate speech" do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20.[12] Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[13]
Enforcement of hate speech laws[edit]
Hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those that are designed for public order and those that are designed to protect human dignity. Those designed to protect public order seem to be somewhat ineffective because they are rarely enforced. For example, in Northern Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty one years. Those meant to protect human dignity, however, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands seem to be frequently enforced.[14]
Harm of hate speech[edit]
Communication theory provides some insight into the harms caused by hate speech. According to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions allow minorities to be categorized with negative attributes tied to them, and are directly harmful to them. Matsuda et al. (1993) found that racist speech could cause in the recipient of the message direct physical and emotional changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the subordination of these minorities. This has been enough to sway the court in previous cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in USA, in which the Court stated that segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their [African Americans’] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination is supported by scholarly evidence.[15]
Hate speech on Facebook[edit]
Following a campaign that involved the participation of Women, Action and the Media, the Everyday Sexism Project and the activist Soraya Chemaly, who were among 100 advocacy groups, Facebook agreed to update its policy on hate speech. The campaign highlighted content that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women, and used over 57,000 tweets and more than 4,900 emails to create outcomes such as the withdrawal of advertising from Facebook by 15 companies, including Nissan UK, House of Burlesque, and Nationwide UK. The social media website initially responded by stating that "While it may be vulgar and offensive, distasteful content on its own does not violate our policies",[16] but then agreed to take action on May 29, 2013, after it had "become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate."[17]
By country[edit]
Australia[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in Australia
Australia's hate speech laws vary by jurisdiction, and seek especially to prevent victimisation on account of race.
Belgium[edit]
Main articles: Belgian Anti-Racism Law and Belgian Holocaust denial law
The Belgian Anti-Racism Law, in full, the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts inspired by Racism or Xenophobia, is a law against hate speech and discrimination passed by the Federal Parliament of Belgium in 1981 which made certain acts motivated by racism or xenophobia illegal. It is also known as the Moureaux Law.
The Belgian Holocaust denial law, passed on 23 March 1995, bans public Holocaust denial. Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly "deny, play down, justify or approve of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War". Prosecution is led by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines of up to 2500 EUR.
Brazil[edit]
In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".[18]
Canada[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in Canada
In Canada, advocating genocide[19] or inciting hatred[20] against any "identifiable group" is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation". It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
Chile[edit]
Article 31 of the "Ley sobre Libertades de Opinión e Información y Ejercicio del Periodismo" (statute on freedom of opinion and information and the performance of journalism), punishes with a high fine those who “through any means of social communication makes publications or transmissions intended to promote hatred or hostility towards persons or a group of persons due to their race, sex, religion or nationality".[21] This norm has been applied to expressions proffered through the internet.[22] There is also a rule aggravating the penalties of crimes when they are motivated by discriminatory hatred.
Council of Europe[edit]
The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The ECtHR does not offer an accepted definition for "hate speech" but instead offers only parameters by which prosecutors can decide if the "hate speech" is entitled to the protection of freedom of speech.[23]
The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.
Croatia[edit]
The Croatian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Croatian penal code prohibits and punishes anyone "who based on differences of race, religion, language, political or any other belief, wealth, birth, education, social status or other properties, gender, skin color, nationality or ethnicity violates basic human rights and freedoms recognized from international community".[24]
Denmark[edit]
Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements by which a group is threatened (trues), insulted (forhånes) or degraded (nedværdiges) due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[25]
Finland[edit]
There has been considerable debate over the definition of "hate speech" (vihapuhe) in the Finnish language.[26][27]
If "hate speech" is taken to mean ethnic agitation, it is prohibited in Finland and defined in the section 11 of the penal code, War crimes and crimes against humanity, as publishing data, an opinion or other statement that threatens or insults a group on basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or any comparable basis. Ethnic agitation is punishable with a fine or up to 2 years in prison, or 4 months to 4 years if aggravated (such as incitement to genocide).[28]
Critics claim that, in political contexts, labeling certain opinions and statements "hate speech" can be used to silence unfavorable or critical opinions and play down debate. Certain politicians, including Member of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho, consider the term "hate speech" problematic because of the lack of an easy definition.[27]
France[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in France
France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).[29]
Germany[edit]
In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment.[citation needed]Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders".[citation needed]Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g., the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
Iceland[edit]
In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (In this context "assault" does not refer to physical violence but only to verbal "assault".)
India[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in India
Freedom of speech and expression is protected by article 19 (1) of the constitution of India, but under article 19(2) "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of "the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence".[30]
Indonesia[edit]
Indonesia has been a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 2006, but has not promulgated comprehensive legislation against hate-speech crimes. Calls for a comprehensive anti-hate-speech law and associated educational program have followed statements by a leader of a hard-line Islamic organization that Balinese Hindus were mustering forces to protect the "lascivious Miss World pageant" in “a war against Islam" and that "those who fight on the path of Allah are promised heaven". The statements are said to be an example of similar messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques throughout the country by fundamentalist clerics.[31]
Ireland[edit]
In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i), however, this is only an implied right provided that liberty of expression "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State".[32] The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation".[33][34]
Japan[edit]
Japanese law covers threats and slander, but it "does not apply to hate speech against general groups of people".[35] Japan became a member of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1995. Article 4 of the convention sets forth provisions calling for the criminalization of hate speech. But the Japanese government has suspended the provisions, saying actions to spread or promote the idea of racial discrimination have not been taken in Japan to such an extent that legal action is necessary. The Foreign Ministry says that this assessment remains unchanged.[36]
In May 2013, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) warned the Japanese government that it needs to take measures to curb hate speech against so-called "comfort women", or Asian women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II. The committee's recommendation called for the Japanese government to better educate Japanese society on the plight of women who were forced into sexual slavery to prevent stigmatization, and to take necessary measures to repair the lasting effects of exploitation, including addressing their right to compensation.[37][38]
In 2013, following demonstrations, parades, and comments posted on the Internet threatening violence against foreign residents of Japan, especially Koreans, there are concerns that hate speech is a growing problem in Japan.[39][40][41] Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Justice Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki have expressed concerns about the raise in hate speech, saying that it "goes completely against the nation's dignity", but so far have stopped short of proposing any legal action against protesters.[36]
On 22 September 2013 around 2,000 people participated in the "March on Tokyo for Freedom" campaigning against recent hate speech marches. Participants called on the Japanese government to "sincerely adhere" to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Sexual minorities and the disabled also participated in the march.[42]
On 25 September 2013 a new organization, "An international network overcoming hate speech and racism" (Norikoenet), that is opposed to hate speech against ethnic Koreans and other minorities in Japan was launched.[43]
On 7 October 2013, in a rare ruling on racial discrimination against ethnic Koreans, a Japanese court ordered an anti-Korean group, Zaitokukai, to stop "hate speech" protests against a Korean school in Kyoto and pay the school 12.26 million yen ($126,400 U.S.) in compensation for protests that took place in 2009 and 2010.[44][45]
A United Nations panel urged Japan to ban hate speech.[46][47][48]
Jordan[edit]
See also: Blasphemy law in Jordan
Several Jordanian laws seek to prevent the publication or dissemination of material that would provoke strife or hatred:[49]
Article 6 of Act No. 76 of 2009 regulating publicity and advertising in municipal areas states: (a) The following shall be deemed an infringement of this regulation: (i) The inclusion in publicity or advertisements of material that offends national or religious sentiment or public morals or that is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The publicization of ideas based on racial superiority, racial hatred and the instigation of racial discrimination against any person or group constitute punishable offences.
Article 20 of the Audiovisual Media Act No. 71 of 2002 states: “The licensee shall not broadcast or rebroadcast any material that is likely to provoke confessional and interethnic strife, to undermine national unity or to instigate terrorism, racism or religious intolerance or to damage domestic relations in the Kingdom.”
Article 7 of the Printing and Publications Act No. 8 of 1998 sets out the ethical rules that apply to journalism and the conduct of journalists. It is illegal to publish material likely to stir up hatred or to make propaganda with a view to setting citizens against one another.
Article 40(a)(iv) of the Print and Publications Act No. 10 of 1993 states that it is prohibited to publish articles that are likely to jeopardize national unity, incite others to commit crimes, stir up hostility, and foment hatred, division and discord between members of society.
Netherlands[edit]
The Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal code is as follows:
Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[50]
Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[51]
In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, for breaching articles 137c and 137d.[52] On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges.[53]
New Zealand[edit]
New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons". Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
Norway[edit]
Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual orientation, religion or philosophy of life.[54] At the same time, the Norwegian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, and there has been an ongoing public and judicial debate over where the right balance between the ban against hate speech and the right to free speech lies. Norwegian courts have been restrictive in the use of the hate speech law and only few persons have been sentenced for violating the law since its implementation in 1970. A public Free Speech committee (1996-1999) recommended to abolish the hate speech law but the Norwegian Parliament instead voted to slightly strengthen it.[55]
Poland[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in Poland
The hate speech laws in Poland punish those who offend the feelings of the religious by e.g. disturbing a religious ceremony or creating public calumny. They also prohibit public expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation.[56]
Serbia[edit]
The Serbian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but restricts it in certain cases to protect human rights. The criminal charge of "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" carries a minimum six months prison term and a maximum of ten years.[57]
Singapore[edit]
Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. The Penal Code criminalizes the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion. It also makes it an offence for anyone to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.
South Africa[edit]
In South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 contains the following clause:

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―
a.be hurtful;
b.be harmful or to incite harm;
c.promote or propagate hatred.[58]
The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another")[59] may also be used to prosecute hate speech.[60]
In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)", a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred.[61]
Sweden[edit]
Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith, or sexual orientation.[62][63] The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.[64] There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights.[65] The crime is called Hets mot folkgrupp in Swedish which directly translated can be translated to Incitement (of hatred/violence) towards population groups.
The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,[66] was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke Green of hate speech based on a 2003 sermon. His conviction was later overturned.[65][67]
Switzerland[edit]
In Switzerland public discrimination or invoking to rancor against persons or a group of people because of their race, ethnicity, is getting penalized with a term of imprisonment until 3 years or a mulct. In 1934, the authorities of the Basel-Stadt canton criminalized anti-Jewish hate speech, e.g., the accusation of ritual murders, mostly in reaction against a pro-nazi antisemitic group and newspaper, the Volksbund.[68]
United Kingdom[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[3][69][70][71][72][73][74] Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches[citation needed], does not criminalise jokes about peoples’ beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.[75]
United States[edit]
Constitutional framework[edit]
The 1789 Constitution of the United States of America dealt only with the three heads of power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the last four articles. The protection of civil rights was not written into the original Constitution but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although this section is written only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch), the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, works to extend this prohibition to laws of the states as well.
Some state constitutions also have a "free speech" provision, most notably, California.[76]
Supreme Court case law[edit]
Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[77]
Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[78]
This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[79] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[80] The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.
In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [81]
Societal implementation[edit]
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[82][83]
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[84] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[85] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[86]
NTIA report[edit]
In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. Study findings revealed only a few instances during the past decade in which broadcast facilities were used to spread messages of hate and bigotry. In two such instances, radio broadcasts arguably urged an audience to commit hate-motivated crimes. In other instances, radio broadcast licensees aired programming that evidenced prejudice. A few highly publicized cable television programs promoted messages of hate and bigotry. In some cases, cable programming stirred community reaction and was followed by counterprogramming. During the 1980s, computer bulletin boards were established by various white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, but many fell into disuse later in the decade. The study also found that hate "hotlines" are used to deliver recorded messages of bigotry and prejudice and that telephones can be used to intimidate, threaten, and harass individuals and organizations. NTIA's research suggests that hate messages represent a very small percentage of electronic communications media and that the best response is public education rather than government censorship and regulation. Legal remedies involving the use of telecommunications to commit or encourage hate crimes are discussed, as well as technologies that can protect or empower targets of hate speech.[87] A list of commenters is appended.
In 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”. This report gave one of the first definitions by government on hate speech.[citation needed] According to NTIA hate speech is:
Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.
Hate speech in media[edit]
In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC),[88] a nonprofit organization with a mission to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a three prong strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[89] The petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center (CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study” was also released in January 2009.[90][91]
“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.
False facts
Flawed argumentation
Divisive language
Dehumanizing metaphors
In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.[92] Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.
See also[edit]
Allport's scale
Anti-LGBT slogans
Ethnic intolerance (disambiguation)
Ethnic joke
Gay bashing
Gregory Stanton's 8 Stages of Genocide
Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese
Hate mail
Historical revisionism (negationism)
Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
Personal attack
Political correctness
Race baiting
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Definitions for "hate speech", Dictionary.com. Retrieved 25 June 2011
2.Jump up ^ Nockleby, John T. (2000), “Hate Speech,” in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, vol. 3. (2nd ed.), Detroit: Macmillan Reference US, pp. 1277-1279. Cited in "Library 2.0 and the Problem of Hate Speech," by Margaret Brown-Sica and Jeffrey Beall, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, vol. 9 no. 2 (Summer 2008).
3.^ Jump up to: a b Criminal Justice Act 2003
4.Jump up ^ An Activist's Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles; p125 by Yogyakarta Principles in Action
5.Jump up ^ Kinney, Terry A. (2008). "Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms". The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Reference Online. doi:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
6.Jump up ^ Uslegal.com: Hate speech Retrieved 31 July 2012
7.Jump up ^ UK-USA: The British Character of America
8.Jump up ^ "The PCspeak of Diversity". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "George Orwell meets the OIC". Human Events. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
10.Jump up ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20
11.Jump up ^ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 4
12.Jump up ^ Paragraph 54 of "Draft general comment No. 34", UN Human Rights Committee Hundredth and first session, 3 May 2011
13.Jump up ^ Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the use of the Internet for purposes of incitement to racial hatred, racist propaganda and xenophobia, and on ways of promoting international cooperation in this area, Preparatory Committee for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, United Nations, 27 April 2001
14.Jump up ^ Bell, Jeannine (Summer 2009). "Restraining the heartless: racist speech and minority rights.". Indiana Law Journal 84: 963–979. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
15.Jump up ^ Calvert, Clay (1997). "Hate Speech and its Harms: A Communication Theory Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Communication 47: 4–19. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02690.x. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
16.Jump up ^ Sara C Nelson (28 May 2013). "#FBrape: Will Facebook Heed Open Letter Protesting 'Endorsement Of Rape & Domestic Violence'?". The Huffington Post UK. Retrieved 29 May 2013.
17.Jump up ^ Rory Carroll (29 May 2013). "Facebook gives way to campaign against hate speech on its pages". The Guardian UK. Retrieved 29 May 2013.
18.Jump up ^ "1988 Constitution made racism a crime with no right to bail", Folha de São Paulo, 15 April 2005.
19.Jump up ^ "Advocating genocide", R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sec. 318, Criminal Code of Canada
20.Jump up ^ "Public incitement of hatred" and "Wilful promotion of hatred", R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sec. 319, Criminal Code of Canada
21.Jump up ^ "Alvaro Paúl Díaz, The Criminalization of Hate Speech in Chile in Light of Comparative Case Law (IN SPANISH), Rev. chil. derecho, 2011, vol.38, n.3, pp. 573-609.". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
22.Jump up ^ "Alvaro Paul Díaz, The Criminalization of Hate Speech in Chile in Light of Comparative Case Law (IN SPANISH), Rev. chil. derecho, 2011, vol.38, n.3, pp. 573-609.". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
23.Jump up ^ Sharon, Alina Dain (February 28, 2013). "A Web of Hate: European, U.S. Laws Clash on Defining and Policing Online Anti-Semitism". Algemeiner Journal.
24.Jump up ^ Article 174. of Croatian penal code on Croatian Wikisource
25.Jump up ^ Danish Penal code, Straffeloven, section 266 B.
26.Jump up ^ "TV2:n Vihaillassa ei päästy yksimielisyyteen vihapuhe-käsitteestä". Helsing Sanomat (in Finnish). 20 September 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
27.^ Jump up to: a b "Vihapuheen määritelmästä ei yksimielisyyttä". YLE Uutiset (in Finnish) (YLE). 21 September 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
28.Jump up ^ Finnish Penal code Rikoslaki/Strafflagen Chapter 11, section 10 Ethnic agitation / Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan
29.Jump up ^ Loi 90-615 du 13 juillet 1990
30.Jump up ^ Constitution of India
31.Jump up ^ "Hard-Liners Targeting Miss World in Bali Shows Need for Anti-Hate-Speech Law in Indonesia", Johannes Nugroho, Jakarta Globe, 23 September 2013. Retrieved 29 September 2013.
32.Jump up ^ "Bunreacht na hEireann Fundamental Rights". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
33.Jump up ^ "Irish Statute Book Database". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
34.Jump up ^ "Dublin Bus driver convicted of incitement to hatred". RTE.ie. 22 September 2000. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
35.Jump up ^ "Foreign correspondents share opinions on Japanese hate speech marches"[dead link], The Mainichi, 10 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
36.^ Jump up to: a b "Justice minister criticizes hate speech in Japan but won't punish offenders", The Asahi Shimbun, 10 May 2013.
37.Jump up ^ "UN group urges Tokyo to curb hate speech", Sarah Kim, Korea JoongAng Daily, 24 May 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
38.Jump up ^ "C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations", Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Japan, adopted by the Committee at its fiftieth session, 29 April-17 May 2013 (E/C.12/JPN/CO/3), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Economic and Social Council, United Nations, 10 June 2013. "26. The Committee is concerned about the lasting negative effects of the exploitation to which 'comfort women' were subjected on their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and their entitlement to reparation (arts. 11 and 3). The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary measures to address the lasting effects of the exploitation and to guarantee the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by 'comfort women'. The Committee also recommends that the State party educate the public on the exploitation of 'comfort women' so as to prevent hate speech and other manifestations of hatred that stigmatize them."
39.Jump up ^ "Politicians silent on curbing hate speech", Eric Johnston, Japan Times, 10 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
40.Jump up ^ "Japan conservatives: 'Hate speech goes too far' ", Julian Ryall, Deutsche Welle, 9 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
41.Jump up ^ "No place for hate speech", Japan Times, 5 June 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
42.Jump up ^ "Anti-hate speech march fills streets around Shinjuku", The Mainichi, 23 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
43.Jump up ^ "Anti-hate speech group launched in Japan", The Mainichi, 26 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
44.Jump up ^ "Japan court in Korean discrimination ruling", BBC News, 7 October 2013. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
45.Jump up ^ "Kyoto court bans 'hate speech' around school for ethnic Koreans", Gakushi Fujiwara, The Asahi Shimbun, 7 October 2013. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
46.Jump up ^ "Hate speech rallies spreading across Japan". AJW by The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
47.Jump up ^ "U.N. panel urges Japan to enact law to prohibit hate speech". AJW by The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
48.Jump up ^ "U.N. panel urges Japan to regulate hate speech by law". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
49.Jump up ^ "Jordan, Combined reports submitted for 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007", Reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United Nations, 21 September 2011, accessed 13 September 2012
50.Jump up ^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code - article 137c
51.Jump up ^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code - article 137d
52.Jump up ^ "BBC report on Geert Wilders". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
53.Jump up ^ "Geert Wilders cleared of hate charges by Dutch court". BBC News. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
54.Jump up ^ "Norwegian Penal code, Straffeloven, section 135 a.". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
55.Jump up ^ Sindre Bangstad: diskriminerende ytringer Store norske leksikon (Norwegian), retrieved 25 April 2013
56.Jump up ^ Venice Commission (2008). "Analysis of the Domestic Law Concerning Blasphemy, Religious Insult and Inciting Religious Hatred in Albania, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom on the Basis of Replies to a Questionnaire" (PDF). Council of Europe. Retrieved 14 May 2010.[dead link]
57.Jump up ^ Serbian Penal code, section 317.
58.Jump up ^ Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000, s. 10(1).
59.Jump up ^ Clark, DM (2003). South African Law Reform Commission Issue Paper 22 Project 130: Stalking. South African Law Commission. ISBN 0-621-34410-9.
60.Jump up ^ Hanti, Otto (9 August 2006). "Man fined after racial slur to top judge". IOL. Retrieved 10 July 2007.
61.Jump up ^ Benesch, Susan. "Words as Weapons". World Policy Journal (Spring 2012). Retrieved 31 May 2012.
62.Jump up ^ Swedish Penal code, Brottsbalken, chapter 16, section 8.
63.Jump up ^ The Swedish Penal Code (English), chapter 16, section 8
64.Jump up ^ Proposition 2001/02:59, Hets mot folkgrupp, m.m., chapter 5
65.^ Jump up to: a b Judgment of the Supreme Court of Sweden in the Åke Green case[dead link]
66.Jump up ^ Lag om hets mot folkgrupp innefattar homosexuella[dead link]
67.Jump up ^ "The Local, 29 Nov 2005: Åke Green cleared over gay sermon". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
68.Jump up ^ "Basel verbiete jede Diffamierung von Juden und Judentum" (PDF) (in German). Vienna: Die Stimme - Jüdische Zeitung. 14 December 1934. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
69.Jump up ^ Public Order Act 1986
70.Jump up ^ Text of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
71.Jump up ^ Text of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
72.Jump up ^ Text of the Amendment to Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
73.Jump up ^ Text of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (England and Wales) as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
74.Jump up ^ Text of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
75.Jump up ^ "Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill". The Scottish Parliament. Retrieved 31 August 2013.
76.Jump up ^ see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, notable for the "positive liberty" interpretation.
77.Jump up ^ Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942)
78.Jump up ^ Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, at 447 (1969)
79.Jump up ^ R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), 505 U.S. 377
80.Jump up ^ It should be noted that SCOTUS will uphold a law that punishes hate violence as an aggravating factor in the normal sentencing guidelines. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) a gang of black youths beat up a white teenager because he was white. The Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin law that considering the hate based crime in an assault as an aggravating factor is not in contravention of the first amendment.
81.Jump up ^ "Facts and Case Summary: Snyder v. Phelps". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
82.Jump up ^ Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
83.Jump up ^ See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).
84.Jump up ^ "Free speech on public college campuses", Kermit L. Hall, First Amendment Center, 13 September 2002
85.Jump up ^ See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995).
86.Jump up ^ "Harassment policies in the university", Alan Charles Kors, Society, vol.28, no.4 (May/June 1991), pp.22-30, Springer, ISSN:0147-2011 (Print), ISSN:1936-4725 (Online)
87.Jump up ^ Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes, Report to Congress, J L Gattuso; B Harris; C E Mattey; C A Nila; and T Sloan, NCJ 157948, National Telecommunication and Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce, 1993, 84 pp.]
88.Jump up ^ National Hispanic Media Coalition, website. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
89.Jump up ^ National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) Petition for Inquiry in the Matter of Hate Speech in the Media, before the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 28 January 2009
90.Jump up ^ “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study”, January 2009
91.Jump up ^ "Hate Speech in the Media", a funded project of the Social Science Research Council, Primary Investigators: Chon A. Noriega and Francisco Javier Iribarren, University of California-Los Angeles, in partnership with the National Hispanic Media Coalition
92.Jump up ^ Comments of the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), in the matter of Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age (GN docket no. 10-25), before the US Federal Communications Commission, 7 May 2010
External links[edit]
TANDIS (Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Information System), developed by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
Reconciling Rights and Responsibilities of Colleges and Students: Offensive Speech, Assembly, Drug Testing and Safety
From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in Higher Education
Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Survivor bashing - bias motivated hate crimes
"Striking the right balance" by Agnès Callamard Article 19
Hate speech, a factsheet by the European Court of Human Rights, 2013
Recommendation No. R (97) 20 Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1997


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Censorship
















Example of redaction on (a copy of) a document









































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Racism

































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Internet censorship by country





















































































































































































  


Categories: Censorship
Human rights abuses
Prejudice and discrimination
Sexual orientation and society
Philosophical concepts
Political philosophy
Hate crime
Hate speech
Freedom of speech
Political correctness
Ethically disputed political practices














Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Afrikaans
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Íslenska
עברית
Latina
Magyar
Македонски
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 June 2015, at 20:37.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech












Hate crime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Race hate" redirects here. For the song with the same name by Eddy Grant, see Message Man.
This article is about the crime. For the 2005 film by this name, see Hate Crime (film). For the 2012 film by this name, see Hate Crime (2012 film).
Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: ethnicity, gender identity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.[1][2][3] Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called "bias incidents".
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[4]
A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Victims in the United States
3 Psychological effects
4 Hate crime laws 4.1 Eurasia 4.1.1 European Union
4.1.2 Andorra
4.1.3 Armenia
4.1.4 Austria
4.1.5 Azerbaijan
4.1.6 Belarus
4.1.7 Belgium
4.1.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
4.1.9 Bulgaria
4.1.10 Croatia
4.1.11 Czech Republic
4.1.12 Denmark
4.1.13 Finland
4.1.14 France
4.1.15 Georgia
4.1.16 Germany
4.1.17 Greece
4.1.18 Hungary
4.1.19 Iceland
4.1.20 Ireland
4.1.21 Italy
4.1.22 Kazakhstan
4.1.23 Kyrgyzstan
4.1.24 Russia
4.1.25 Spain
4.1.26 Sweden
4.1.27 United Kingdom 4.1.27.1 Scotland
4.1.28 Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws
4.2 North America 4.2.1 Canada
4.2.2 United States
4.3 South America 4.3.1 Brazil
4.3.2 Chile

5 Support and opposition to hate crime laws 5.1 Support for hate crime laws
5.2 Opposition to hate crime laws
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

History[edit]
The term "hate crime" came into common use in the 1980s, but the term is often used retrospectively about events occurring prior to that.[5] From the Roman persecution of Christians to the Nazi slaughter of Jews, hate crimes were committed by individuals and government long before the term was used.[3]
As Europeans began to colonize the world from the 16th century onward, indigenous peoples in the colonized areas, such as the Native Americans increasingly became the targets of bias-motivated intimidation and violence.[6] During the past two centuries, some of the more typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on white people traveling in predominantly black neighborhoods, assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues and xenophobic responses to a variety of minority ethnic groups.[7]



 Postcard of the Duluth lynchings of African American men on June 15, 1920
The verb "to lynch" is attributed to the actions of Charles Lynch, an 18th-century Virginia Quaker. Lynch, other militia officers, and justices of the peace rounded up Tories sympathizers who were given a summary trial at an informal court; sentences handed down included whipping, property seizure, coerced pledges of allegiance, and conscription into the military. Originally the term referred to organized but unauthorized punishment of criminals. It later evolved to describe execution outside of "ordinary justice" and is associated with weak or nonexistent police authority, like in the Old West, and racism.[3]
Examples like the murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre tend not to be classified as "hate crimes" by U.S. investigative officials or in the media, but they have meanwhile been described as "hate crimes against whites by blacks" by Conservative commentators such as David Horowitz (a conservative author and academic), Michelle Malkin (a commentator for the Fox News channel and a prolific conservative author) and Stuart Taylor, Jr. (journalist).[8]
Victims in the United States[edit]
Anti-black bias is the most frequently reported hate crime motivation in the United States. Of the 8,208 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2010, 48% were race related - with 70% of those having an anti-black bias.[9] Other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-Jewish, anti-white, anti-Hispanic, anti-Islamic, and against a person's perceived sexual orientation.[9] At times, these bias motivations overlap, as violence can be both anti-gay and anti-black, for example.[10]
Now because not every population group has the same population, using raw statistics might not be the best way to compare which groups get victimized the most per capita. Perhaps a more accurate way would be factoring in the populations of these groups and generating a per capita rate. Overall, the amount of hate crimes that have been committed since the first hate crime bill of 1997 is 86,582.[11]

Hate Crimes in the USA (2008-2012) by Population Group

Population Group
Estimated Population
Total Hate Crimes Against (2008-2012) [12][13][14][15][16]
Rate (per 100,000 people)
Violent Hate Crimes Against[17]
Rate (per 100,000 people)

Jewish 005,248,674[18] 4,457 84.9 411 7.8
LGBT 009,000,000[19] 3,419 66.9 3,849 35.6
Muslim 001,852,473[18] 761 41.1 258 13.9
Black 038,929,319[20] 13,411 34.4 4,356 11.2
Aboriginal 002,932,248[20] 364 12.4 161 5.5
Hispanic 050,477,594[20] 3,064 6.1 1,482 2.9
Asian & Pacific Islander 015,214,265[20] 798 5.2 276 1.8
White 223,553,265[20] 3,459 1.5 1,614 0.7
Catholic 067,924,018[21] 338 0.5 32 0.0
Atheist & Agnostic 017,598,496[21] 47 0.3 5 0.0
Protestant 148,197,858[21] 229 0.2 17 0.0
Heterosexual 297,939,444[19] 118 0.0 42 0.0

The majority of victims of violent hate crime in 2003-2011 were Caucasian (65%), followed by Hispanic (15%), and African American (13%), however, the rate of violent hate crime victimization was similar for all three groups.[22]
High profile murders motivated by the victims' sexual orientation have prompted the passage of hate crimes legislation, notably the cases of Sean W. Kennedy and Matthew Shepard. Kennedy was mentioned by Senator Gordon Smith in a speech on the floor of the US Senate while advocating such legislation. The Matthew Shepard and James E. Byrd Jr. Hate crime Prevention Act was signed into law in 2009. It included sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, the disabled and military personnel and their family members.[citation needed] This is the first all-inclusive bill ever passed in the United States, taking 45 years to complete.[clarification needed]
Gender-based crimes may also be considered hate crime. This view would designate rape and domestic violence, as well as non-interpersonal violence against women such as the École Polytechnique massacre, as hate crime.[23][24][25]
Psychological effects[edit]
Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only upon the direct victim but on others as well. A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes not motivated by antigay bias.[26] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[27]
Impact on the individual victimpsychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.Effect on the targeted groupgeneralized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.Effect on other vulnerable groupsominous effects over minority groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.Effect on the community as a wholedivisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.
Hate crime victims can also develop depression.[28]
Hate crime laws[edit]
Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:
1.laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
2.criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
3.laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
4.laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.[29] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.
Eurasia[edit]
European Union[edit]
Since 2002, with an amendment to the Convention on Cybercrime, the European Union mandates individual states to punish as a crime hate speech done through the internet.[30]
Andorra[edit]
Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person's dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or sex (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.[29]
Armenia[edit]
Armenia has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with ethnic, racial, or religious motives (Criminal Code Article 63).[29]
Austria[edit]
Austria has a penalty-enhancement statute for reasons like repeating a crime, being especially cruel, using others helpless state, playing a leading role in a crime, or committing a crime with racist, xenophobic or especially reprehensible motivation (Penal Code section 33(5)).[31]
Azerbaijan[edit]
Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).[29]
Belarus[edit]
Belarus has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, and religious hatred and discord.[29][32]
Belgium[edit]
Belgium's Act of 25 February 2003 (“"aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism"”) establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of sex, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also "provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination."[29] The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 ("on strengthening legislation against racism"), requires the Centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.[29]
Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]
The Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (enacted 2003) "contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2).”"[33]
Bulgaria[edit]
Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions "have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria."[34]
Croatia[edit]
Croatian Penal code explicitly defines hate crime in article 89 as "any crime committed out of hatred for someones race, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social background, asset, birth, education, social condition, age, health condition or other attribute".[35] On 1 January 2013 new Penal code was introduced with the recognition of a hate crime based on a "race, skin color, religion, national or ethnic background, sexual orientation or gender identity".[36]
Czech Republic[edit]
The Czech legislation finds its constitutional basis in the principles of equality and non-discrimination contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. From there, we can trace two basic lines of protection against hate-motivated incidents: one passes through criminal law, the other through civil law. The current Czech criminal legislation has implications both for decisions about guilt (affecting the decision whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty) and decisions concerning sentencing (affecting the extent of the punishment imposed). It has three levels, to wit:
a circumstance determining whether an act is a crime – hate motivation is included in the basic constituent elements. If hate motivation is not proven, conviction for a hate crime is not possible.
a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty – a hate motivation is included in the qualified constituent elements for some types of crimes (murder, bodily harm). If hate motivation is not proven, the penalty is imposed according to the scale specified for the basic constituent elements of the crime.
general aggravating circumstance – the court is obligated to take the hate motivation into account as a general aggravating circumstance and determines the amount of penalty to impose. Nevertheless, it is not possible to add together a general aggravating circumstance and a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty. (see Annex for details)
Current criminal legislation does not provide for special penalties for acts that target another by reason of his sexual orientation, age or health status. Only the constituent elements of the criminal offense of Incitement to hatred towards a group of persons or to the curtailment of their rights and freedoms, and general aggravating circumstances include attacking a so-called different group of people. Such a group of people can then, of course, be also one defined by sexual orientation, age or health status. A certain disparity has thus been created between, on the one hand, those groups of people who are victimized by reason of their skin color, faith, nationality, ethnicity or political persuasion and enjoy increased protection, and, on the other hand, those groups that are victimized by reason of their sexual orientation, age or health status and are not granted increased protection. This gap in protection against attacks motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, age or health status cannot be successfully bridged by interpretation. Interpretation by analogy is inadmissible in criminal law, sanctionable motivations being exhaustively enumerated.[37]
Denmark[edit]
Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, "section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender's motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence."[38] In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.[29][39]
Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.[29]
Finland[edit]
Finnish Criminal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes "committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group" an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.[29][40] In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnish: kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is conveyed. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Finnish: sotaan yllyttäminen), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of
1.illegal violence directed against foreign country or her citizens,
2.systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defense
3.public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
4.public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.[41]
France[edit]
In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).[29][42]
Georgia[edit]
"There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia."[29]
Germany[edit]
The German Criminal Code does not have hate crime legislation, but instead criminalizes hate speech under a number of different laws, including Volksverhetzung. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However, within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that "the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the willfulness involved in its commission."[43] can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment; under this statute, hate and bias have been taken into consideration in sentencing in past cases.[44]
Hate crimes are not specifically tracked by German police, but have been studied separately: a recently published EU "Report on Racism" finds that racially motivated attacks are frequent in Germany, identifying 18142 incidences for 2006, of which 17597 were motivated by right wing ideologies, both about a 14% year-by-year increase.[45] Relative to the size of the population, this represents an eightfold higher rate of hate crimes than reported in the US during the same period.[46] Awareness of hate crimes and right-wing extremism in Germany remains low.[47]
Greece[edit]
Article Law 927/1979 "Section 1,1 penalises incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalises the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds."[48] Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.[49]
Hungary[edit]
Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim's actual or perceived national, ethnic, religious status or membership in a particular social group are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code.[29] This article was added to the Code in 1996.[50]
Iceland[edit]
Section 233a of the Icelandic Penal Code states "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly abuses a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to two years."[51]
Ireland[edit]
"The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989" makes it an offense to incite hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origins, or membership of the Traveller community, an indigenous minority group."[29]
Ireland does not systematically collect hate crime data.[29]
Italy[edit]
Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, the so-called Legge Mancino (Mancino law), contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motivated by racial, ethnic, national, or religious bias.[29]
Kazakhstan[edit]
In Kazakhstan, there are constitutional provisions prohibiting propaganda promoting racial or ethnic superiority.[29]
Kyrgyzstan[edit]
In Kyrgyzstan, "the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes."[52]
Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.[29][53]
Russia[edit]
Article 29 of the penal code of the Russian Federation bans incitement to riot for the sake of stirring societal, racial, ethnic, and religious hatred as well as the promotion of the superiority of the same. Article 282 further includes protections against incitement of hatred (including gender) via various means of communication, instilling criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.[citation needed]
Spain[edit]
Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness or disability.[29]
Sweden[edit]
Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or "other similar circumstance" of the victim.[29][54]
United Kingdom[edit]
For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.[55] The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) amended sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.[56] For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose.[57] A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated. The Act requires a court also to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:
(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on— (i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)— (i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.[58][59]
In 2013, police in Greater Manchester began recording attacks on goths, punks and other alternative culture groups as hate crimes.[60]
On December 4, 2013 Essex Police launched the ‘Stop the Hate’ initiative as part of a concerted effort to find new ways to tackle hate crime in Essex. The launch was marked by a conference in Chelmsford, hosted by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, which brought together 220 delegates from a range of partner organisations involved in the field.The theme of the conference was ‘Report it to Sort it’ and the emphasis was on encouraging people to tell police if they have been a victim of hate crime, whether it be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.[61]
Scotland[edit]
In Scottish Common law[citation needed] the courts can take any aggravating factor into account when sentencing someone found guilty of an offence. There is specific legislation dealing with the offences of incitement of racial hatred, racially aggravated harassment and offences aggravated by religious prejudice. A Scottish Executive working group examined the issue of hate crime and ways of combating crime motivated by social prejudice, reporting in 2004.[62] Its main recommendations were not implemented, but in their manifestos for the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 several political parties included commitments to legislate in this area, including the Scottish National Party who now form the Scottish Government. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 19 May 2008 by Patrick Harvie MSP,[63] having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government, and was passed unanimously by the parliament on 3 June 2009.[64]
Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws[edit]



 A photograph of the famous fresco Bathing of the Christ, after being vandalized by a Kosovo Albanian mob during the 2004 unrest in Kosovo
Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, San Marino, Slovenia and Turkey have no hate crime laws.[29]
North America[edit]
Canada[edit]
“In Canada the legal definition of hate crime can be found in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code”. [65]
In 1996 the federal government amended a section of the Criminal Code that pertains to sentencing. Specifically, section 718.2. The section states (with regard to the hate crime):
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.'' [65]
A vast majority (84 per cent) of hate crime perpetrators were “male, with an average age of just under 30. Less than 10 of those accused had criminal records, and less than 5 per cent had previous hate crime involvement (ibid O’Grady 2010 page 163.).” [66] “Only 4 percent of hate crimes were linked to an organized or extremist group (Silver et al., 2004).” [67]
As of 2004, Jewish people were the largest ethnic group targeted by hate crimes, followed by blacks, Muslims, South Asians, and homosexuals (Silver et al., 2004).[67]
During the Nazi regime, anti-Semitism was a cause of hate related violence in Canada. For example, on August 16, 1933 there was a baseball game in Toronto and one team was made up of mostly Jewish players. At the end of the game, a group of Nazi sympathizers unfolded a Swastika flag and shouted ‘Heil Hitler’. That event erupted into a brawl that had Jews and Italians against Anglo Canadians and the brawl went on for hours.[65]
The first time someone was charged with hate speech over the internet occurred on 27 March 1996. “A Winnipeg teenager was arrested by the police for sending an email to a local political activist that contained the message ‘Death to homosexuals’ it’s prescribed in the Bible! Better watch out next Gay Pride Week.’ (Nairne, 1996).”[67]
Robert suggests that “Canada lags behind other nations in collecting comprehensive statistics on hate crime.” [68][context?]
United States[edit]
Main article: Hate crime laws in the United States



 Shepard (center), Louvon Harris (left), Betty Bryd Boatner (right) with President Barack Obama in 2009 to promote the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime laws were passed after the American Civil War, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan. The modern era of hate-crime legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." However, "The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.".[69]
The first state hate-crime statute, California's Section 190.2, was passed in 1978 and provided for penalty enhancement in cases where murder was motivated by prejudice against four "protected status" categories: race, religion, color, and national origin. Washington included ancestry in a statute passed in 1981. Alaska included creed and sex in 1982 and later disability, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. In the 1990s some state laws began to include age, marital status, membership in the armed forces, and membership in civil rights organizations.[70]
Criminal acts which could be considered hate crimes in various states included aggravated assault, assault and battery, vandalism, rape, threats and intimidation, arson, trespassing, stalking, and various "lesser" acts until in 1987 California state legislation included all crimes as possible hate crimes.[71]
Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity." In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added actual or perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics.[72]
According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8% nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46% were classified as intimidation and 31.9% as simple assaults. 81% of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction.[73]
However, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, the number of hate crimes decreased to 7,624 incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies.[74] These incidents included 9 murders and 2 rapes(out of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007).[75]
Attorney General Eric Holder said in June 2009 that recent killings show the need for a tougher U.S. hate crimes law to stop "violence masquerading as political activism".[76]
The 2011 hate crime statistics show 46.9% were motivated by race and 20.8% by sexual orientation.[77]
Prosecutions of hate crimes have been difficult in the United States. Recently though, state governments have attempted to re-investigate and re-try past hate crimes. One prominent example is Mississippi's decision in 1990 to retry Byron De La Beckwith for the murder of Medgar Evers, a prominent figure in the NAACP.[78] This would be the first time in U.S. history that an unresolved civil rights case would be re-opened. Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was tried for the murder on two previous occasions and it resulted with a hung jury. However, he was finally sentenced to life in prison in 1994. Presented with testimony of two FBI informants who had infiltrated the KKK, the missing transcript from the first trial, the relocation of missing witnesses, numerous witness admissions of Beckwith bragging about his role in the murder and Beckwith’s own racist writings, a mixed race jury found Beckwith guilty of murder. Even though De La Beckwith was 73 years of age when he was sentenced to life in prison, the 1994 conviction has been interpreted as a way for Mississippi to shed its racist past.[79]
South America[edit]
Brazil[edit]
In Brazil, hate crime laws focus on racism, racial injury, and other special bias-motivated crimes such as, for example, murder by death squads[80] and genocide on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.[81] Murder by death squads and genocide are legally classified as "hideous crimes" (crimes hediondos in Portuguese).[82]
The crimes of racism and racial injury, although similar, are enforced slightly differently.[83] Article 140, 3rd paragraph, of the Penal Code establishes a harsher penalty, from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years, for injuries motivated by "elements referring to race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, or the condition of being an aged or disabled person".[84] On the other side, Law 7716/1989 covers "crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin".[85]
In addition, the Brazilian Constitution defines as a "fundamental goal of the Republic" (Article 3rd, clause IV) "to promote the wealth of all, with no prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age, and any other forms of discrimination".[86]
Chile[edit]
The Chilean Congress began a discussion on a piece of anti-discrimination in 2005, which was eventually passed in November, 2011. This legislation included an article that spoke expressly against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. However, on January 4, 2012, the Constitutional Tribunal (composed of senators from Chile's Independent Democratic Union) repealed the 2nd Article of the legislation (which applied primarily to sexual diversity).[87]
On April 5, 2012, Chile's Congress passed most of an anti-discrimination law that would make it a crime to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, appearance or handicap.[88]
Support and opposition to hate crime laws[edit]
Support for hate crime laws[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2015)
Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm.[citation needed] It is said[by whom?] that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people.[citation needed] Furthermore, it is asserted[by whom?] that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[7] The beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters during the same riot is also an example that supports this argument.
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.[89] Whilst in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court defined "fighting words" as "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[90]
Opposition to hate crime laws[edit]
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination is in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics.[91] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[92][93][94][95][96][97][98]
In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[99] Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[100] Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.[101]
See also[edit]
Disability hate crime
Communal violence
Fighting Discrimination
Hate group
Thoughtcrime
Violence against LGBT people
Bashing (pejorative)
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Stotzer, R. (June 2007). "Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups" (PDF). Williams Institute. Retrieved 2012-03-17. "A hate crime or bias motivated crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally selects the victim because of his or her membership in a certain group."
2.Jump up ^ "FBI — Methodology". FBI.
3.^ Jump up to: a b c Streissguth, Tom (2003). Hate Crimes (Library in a Book), p.3. ISBN 0-8160-4879-7.
4.Jump up ^ http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/
5.Jump up ^ "Hate Crimes". FBI. Retrieved May 26, 2015.
6.Jump up ^ Fred Fausz, "Jamestown at 400: Caught Between a Rock and a Slippery Slope", History News Network, George Mason University, 7 May 2007
7.^ Jump up to: a b "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-11-14.
8.Jump up ^ "'Hate Crimes' and Double Standards" By Stuart Taylor, Jr. The Atlantic. May 29, 2007.
9.^ Jump up to: a b "Hate Crime Statistics, 2010". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
10.Jump up ^ Meyer, Doug (2010). "Evaluating the Severity of Hate-motivated Violence: Intersectional Differences among LGBT Hate Crime Victims". Sociology 44 (5): 980–995. doi:10.1177/0038038510375737.
11.Jump up ^ Shepard, Mathew; Byrd, James Jr. (2011–2014). "Hate Crimes Law". Human Rights Campaign.
12.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2008. Retrieved May 17, 2014
13.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2009. Retrieved May 17, 2014
14.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2010. Retrieved May 17, 2014
15.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2014
16.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2014
17.Jump up ^ Violent Hate Crimes include: Homicide, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault and Sexual Assault/Rape
18.^ Jump up to: a b In U.S., 77% Identify as Christian. Retrieved May 17, 2014
19.^ Jump up to: a b How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? Retrieved May 17, 2014
20.^ Jump up to: a b c d e American Fact Finder. Retrieved May 17, 2014
21.^ Jump up to: a b c "Nones" on the Rise Retrieved May 17, 2014
22.Jump up ^ "Hate Crime Victimization, 2003-2011" (PDF). U.S. Department of Justice.
23.Jump up ^ Angelari, Marguerite (1997). "Hate Crime Statutes: A Promising Tool for Fighting Violence Against Women". In Karen J. Maschke. Pornography, sex work, and hate speech. Taylor & Francis.
24.Jump up ^ Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. (2013). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies. Sage.
25.Jump up ^ McPhail, Beverly (2003). "Gender-Bias Hate Crimes: A Review". In Barbara Perry. Hate and bias crime: a reader. Psychology Press.
26.Jump up ^ Herek, Gregory M.; Gillis, J. Roy; Cogan, Jeanine C. (1999). "Psychological Sequelae of Hate-Crime Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67 (6): 945–951. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.945. PMID 10596515.
27.Jump up ^ "Crown Policy Manual" (PDF). 21 March 2005. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
28.Jump up ^ Cox, William T. L.; Abramson, Lyn Y.; Devine, Patricia G.; Hollon, Steven D. (2012). "Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective". Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (5): 427–449. doi:10.1177/1745691612455204.
29.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u "Michael McClintock: ''Everyday Fears: A Survey of Violent Hate Crimes in Europe and North America''". Humanrightsfirst.org. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
30.Jump up ^ Arias, Martha L. https://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2422
31.Jump up ^ § 33 StGB Besondere Erschwerungsgründe, StGB, accessed 2015-02-15.
32.Jump up ^ Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, § 64 (1), para. 9 (translated from the Russian), June 9, 1999.
33.Jump up ^ Office of the High Representative, Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, January 2003.
34.Jump up ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Bulgaria,” adopted on June 18, 1999, and made public on March 21, 2000.
35.Jump up ^ "71 28.6.2006 Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Kaznenog zakona". Narodne-novine.nn.hr. 2006-06-28. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
36.Jump up ^ "Centar za LGBT ravnopravnost » Vlada prihvatila prijedloge Centra za LGBT ravnopravnost". Ravnopravnost.hr. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
37.Jump up ^ "Zpráva o násilí z nenávisti v České republice za rok 2011" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-11-11.
38.Jump up ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Denmark,” adopted on June 16, 2000, and made public on April 3, 2001, para. 9.
39.Jump up ^ Chahrokh, Klug, and Bilger, Migrants, Minorities, and Legislation.
40.Jump up ^ EUMC, “Racism and xenophobia in the E.U.,” p. 51.
41.Jump up ^ Penal Code (39/1889) as of 1006/2004. §§ 6:5.1.4 (ethnic hatred as an aggravating factor), 11:8 (ethnic agitation) and 12:2 (warmongering). The points cited remain in force on the day of retrieval, checked from the Finnish version: Rikoslaki. The Government proposal HE 55/2007 will move the § 11:8 to §11:10 without changing the content, if the proposal is passed by the Parliament of Finland. Retrieved 11-23-2007.
42.Jump up ^ Loi n° 2003–88 du 3 février 2003 visant à aggraver les peines punissant les infractions à caractère raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe
43.Jump up ^ "Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)". Iuscomp.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
44.Jump up ^ Marc Coester (2008): Das Konzept der Hate Crimes aus den USA unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Rechtsextremismus in Deutschland. Peter Lang: Frankfurt/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wien
45.Jump up ^ "EU Xenophobia Report: Racism On the Rise in Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
46.Jump up ^ "FBI — 2006 Hate Crime in the U.S". Fbi.gov. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
47.Jump up ^ "SPIEGEL ONLINE Interview with Racism Expert: 'Awareness of Ethnic Discrimination Is Low in Germany' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
48.Jump up ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Greece,” adopted on 1999-12-10, and made public on 2000-06-27.
49.Jump up ^ Sitaropoulos, N.: “Executive Summary on Race Equality Directive, State of Play in Greece, section 5, 2003-10-12. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
50.Jump up ^ "United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Concluding Observations/Comments - Hungary". unhchr.ch.
51.Jump up ^ "Icelandic Penal Code (in Icelandic)". Althingi.is. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
52.Jump up ^ CERD, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention; Concluding Observations: Kyrgyzstan, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
53.Jump up ^ “Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2004 (Events of 2003), International Helsinki Federation,” 2004-06-23. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
54.Jump up ^ "Swedish Penal Code" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-01-21.
55.Jump up ^ "Crime and Disorder Act 1998". legislation.gov.uk.
56.Jump up ^ http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_5
57.Jump up ^ Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
58.Jump up ^ Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
59.Jump up ^ "Hate crime" legislation is distinct from "hate speech" legislation. See Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom.
60.Jump up ^ "Manchester police to record attacks on goths, emos and punks as hate crimes". The Guardian (London). 2013-04-03.
61.Jump up ^ "Launch of ‘Stop the Hate’ initiative". Stop the hate. 2013-12-04. Retrieved 2014-07-12.
62.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
63.Jump up ^ "Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill". Scottish.parliament.uk. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
64.Jump up ^ MSPs approve new hate crime laws BBC News 3 June 2009
65.^ Jump up to: a b c O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
66.Jump up ^ O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
67.^ Jump up to: a b c O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
68.Jump up ^ O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
69.Jump up ^ Streissguth (2003), p.20.
70.Jump up ^ Streissguth (2003), p.20-21.
71.Jump up ^ Streissguth (2003), p.21.
72.Jump up ^ State Hate Crime Laws, Anti-Defamation League, June 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
73.Jump up ^ Statistics, 2006 Hate Crime Statistics, 2006,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
74.Jump up ^ Statistics, 2007 Hate Crime Statistics, 2007,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
75.Jump up ^ Statistics, 2007 FBI Crime in the United States 2007,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
76.Jump up ^ "Attorney general urges new hate crimes law – Crime & courts". MSNBC. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
77.Jump up ^ "FBI releases 2011 hate crime statistics". Lakeconews.com. 2012-12-11. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
78.Jump up ^ Labuda, P. (2011). "Racial Reconciliation in Mississippi: An Evaluation of the Proposal to Establish a Mississippi Truth and Reconciliation Commission.". Harvard Blackletter Law Journal 271: 1–48.
79.Jump up ^ Alston, A.A. and Dickerson, J.L. (2009). Devil’s Sanctuary: An Eye-Witness History of Mississippi Hate Crimes. Chicago, IL: Lawrence Hill Books.
80.Jump up ^ Law 8072/1990, Article 1st, I
81.Jump up ^ Law 2889/1956, Article 1st
82.Jump up ^ Law 8072/1990 (aforementioned link), Article 1st, I and single paragraph.
83.Jump up ^ "Racismo ou injúria racial? - Boletim Jurídico". Boletimjuridico.com.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
84.Jump up ^ "DEL2848compilado". Planalto.gov.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
85.Jump up ^ "L7716". Planalto.gov.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
86.Jump up ^ http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao/Constituiçao_Compilado.htm
87.Jump up ^ Matthew Jenkin (2012-03-30). "UN calls for harsher hate crime laws in Chile". Gay Star News. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
88.Jump up ^ "Chile's Congress approves most of hate crime law". BBC News. 2012-04-05.
89.Jump up ^ "Wisconsin v. Mitchell". Enotes.com. Retrieved 2011-10-12.
90.Jump up ^ Sumner, L.W. (2005), "Hate crimes, literature, and speech", in Frey, R.G.; Heath Wellman, Christopher, A companion to applied ethics, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Oxford, UK Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 89–101, doi:10.1002/9780470996621.ch11, ISBN 9781405133456.
91.Jump up ^ R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
92.Jump up ^ The Essayist (1998). Hate Crime Premise. 24 Jul. 1998.[dead link]
93.Jump up ^ Evenson, Brad (2003). Looking for thoughtcrime to crimestop. National Post. February 8, 2003.
94.Jump up ^ Schwartz, L., I.T. Ulit, & D. Morgan (2006). "Straight talk about hate crimes bills: Anti-gay, anti-transgender bias stall federal hate crimes legislation". Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law 7 (2): 171–186.
95.Jump up ^ Icke, David (2003). Tales from the Time Loop. Bridge of Love. ISBN 0-9538810-4-0. [2]
96.Jump up ^ Smith, Peter J. (2007). Democrats refuse religious freedom amendment to hate crimes bill. LifeSite, 26 April 2007.
97.Jump up ^ Kamine, Wendy. The Return of the Thought Police: "Hate crime" legislation is an assault on civil liberties. The Wall Street Journal. October 28, 2007.
98.Jump up ^ Wolski, Chris (1999). Hate Crime Laws Will Spawn Thought Police. Capitalism Magazine Website. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
99.Jump up ^ Jacobs, James B. & Kimberly Potter. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 130–144
100.Jump up ^ Troy, Daniel E. (1999-08-04). "AEI – Short Publications". Aei.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
101.Jump up ^ "Constitutional Challenges to Hate Crimes Statutes". Adl.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Hate crimes.
hate-crime.org
Hate crimes information, by Dr. Gregory Herek
Hate Crime Survey, annual Human Rights First report on the prevalence of hate crimes in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe region.
Hate Crime Statistics, annual FBI/U.S. Department of Justice report on the prevalence of hate crimes in the United States. Required by the Hate Crime Statistics Act.
A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes, a publication by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, part of the U.S. Department of Justice. Many parts of this article have been adapted from this document.
Tolerance.org, a web project sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center
Peabody, Michael "Thought & Crime," Liberty Magazine, March/April 2008, review of recently proposed hate crime legislation and criminal intent issues.
"Hate Crime." Oxford Bibliographies Online: Criminology.
OSCE Hate Crime Reporting


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Racism

































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Abuse























































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics


















































































































































































LGBT pride flag






























































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal


  


Categories: Hate crime
Abuse
Crime by type
Crimes
LGBT rights by issue
Discrimination
Racism
Aggression


















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Български
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Français
Frysk
한국어
Italiano
עברית
Latina
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 June 2015, at 20:29.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime












Hate crime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Race hate" redirects here. For the song with the same name by Eddy Grant, see Message Man.
This article is about the crime. For the 2005 film by this name, see Hate Crime (film). For the 2012 film by this name, see Hate Crime (2012 film).
Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: ethnicity, gender identity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.[1][2][3] Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called "bias incidents".
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[4]
A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Victims in the United States
3 Psychological effects
4 Hate crime laws 4.1 Eurasia 4.1.1 European Union
4.1.2 Andorra
4.1.3 Armenia
4.1.4 Austria
4.1.5 Azerbaijan
4.1.6 Belarus
4.1.7 Belgium
4.1.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
4.1.9 Bulgaria
4.1.10 Croatia
4.1.11 Czech Republic
4.1.12 Denmark
4.1.13 Finland
4.1.14 France
4.1.15 Georgia
4.1.16 Germany
4.1.17 Greece
4.1.18 Hungary
4.1.19 Iceland
4.1.20 Ireland
4.1.21 Italy
4.1.22 Kazakhstan
4.1.23 Kyrgyzstan
4.1.24 Russia
4.1.25 Spain
4.1.26 Sweden
4.1.27 United Kingdom 4.1.27.1 Scotland
4.1.28 Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws
4.2 North America 4.2.1 Canada
4.2.2 United States
4.3 South America 4.3.1 Brazil
4.3.2 Chile

5 Support and opposition to hate crime laws 5.1 Support for hate crime laws
5.2 Opposition to hate crime laws
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

History[edit]
The term "hate crime" came into common use in the 1980s, but the term is often used retrospectively about events occurring prior to that.[5] From the Roman persecution of Christians to the Nazi slaughter of Jews, hate crimes were committed by individuals and government long before the term was used.[3]
As Europeans began to colonize the world from the 16th century onward, indigenous peoples in the colonized areas, such as the Native Americans increasingly became the targets of bias-motivated intimidation and violence.[6] During the past two centuries, some of the more typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on white people traveling in predominantly black neighborhoods, assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues and xenophobic responses to a variety of minority ethnic groups.[7]



 Postcard of the Duluth lynchings of African American men on June 15, 1920
The verb "to lynch" is attributed to the actions of Charles Lynch, an 18th-century Virginia Quaker. Lynch, other militia officers, and justices of the peace rounded up Tories sympathizers who were given a summary trial at an informal court; sentences handed down included whipping, property seizure, coerced pledges of allegiance, and conscription into the military. Originally the term referred to organized but unauthorized punishment of criminals. It later evolved to describe execution outside of "ordinary justice" and is associated with weak or nonexistent police authority, like in the Old West, and racism.[3]
Examples like the murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre tend not to be classified as "hate crimes" by U.S. investigative officials or in the media, but they have meanwhile been described as "hate crimes against whites by blacks" by Conservative commentators such as David Horowitz (a conservative author and academic), Michelle Malkin (a commentator for the Fox News channel and a prolific conservative author) and Stuart Taylor, Jr. (journalist).[8]
Victims in the United States[edit]
Anti-black bias is the most frequently reported hate crime motivation in the United States. Of the 8,208 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2010, 48% were race related - with 70% of those having an anti-black bias.[9] Other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-Jewish, anti-white, anti-Hispanic, anti-Islamic, and against a person's perceived sexual orientation.[9] At times, these bias motivations overlap, as violence can be both anti-gay and anti-black, for example.[10]
Now because not every population group has the same population, using raw statistics might not be the best way to compare which groups get victimized the most per capita. Perhaps a more accurate way would be factoring in the populations of these groups and generating a per capita rate. Overall, the amount of hate crimes that have been committed since the first hate crime bill of 1997 is 86,582.[11]

Hate Crimes in the USA (2008-2012) by Population Group

Population Group
Estimated Population
Total Hate Crimes Against (2008-2012) [12][13][14][15][16]
Rate (per 100,000 people)
Violent Hate Crimes Against[17]
Rate (per 100,000 people)

Jewish 005,248,674[18] 4,457 84.9 411 7.8
LGBT 009,000,000[19] 3,419 66.9 3,849 35.6
Muslim 001,852,473[18] 761 41.1 258 13.9
Black 038,929,319[20] 13,411 34.4 4,356 11.2
Aboriginal 002,932,248[20] 364 12.4 161 5.5
Hispanic 050,477,594[20] 3,064 6.1 1,482 2.9
Asian & Pacific Islander 015,214,265[20] 798 5.2 276 1.8
White 223,553,265[20] 3,459 1.5 1,614 0.7
Catholic 067,924,018[21] 338 0.5 32 0.0
Atheist & Agnostic 017,598,496[21] 47 0.3 5 0.0
Protestant 148,197,858[21] 229 0.2 17 0.0
Heterosexual 297,939,444[19] 118 0.0 42 0.0

The majority of victims of violent hate crime in 2003-2011 were Caucasian (65%), followed by Hispanic (15%), and African American (13%), however, the rate of violent hate crime victimization was similar for all three groups.[22]
High profile murders motivated by the victims' sexual orientation have prompted the passage of hate crimes legislation, notably the cases of Sean W. Kennedy and Matthew Shepard. Kennedy was mentioned by Senator Gordon Smith in a speech on the floor of the US Senate while advocating such legislation. The Matthew Shepard and James E. Byrd Jr. Hate crime Prevention Act was signed into law in 2009. It included sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, the disabled and military personnel and their family members.[citation needed] This is the first all-inclusive bill ever passed in the United States, taking 45 years to complete.[clarification needed]
Gender-based crimes may also be considered hate crime. This view would designate rape and domestic violence, as well as non-interpersonal violence against women such as the École Polytechnique massacre, as hate crime.[23][24][25]
Psychological effects[edit]
Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only upon the direct victim but on others as well. A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes not motivated by antigay bias.[26] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[27]
Impact on the individual victimpsychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.Effect on the targeted groupgeneralized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.Effect on other vulnerable groupsominous effects over minority groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.Effect on the community as a wholedivisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.
Hate crime victims can also develop depression.[28]
Hate crime laws[edit]
Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:
1.laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
2.criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
3.laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
4.laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.[29] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.
Eurasia[edit]
European Union[edit]
Since 2002, with an amendment to the Convention on Cybercrime, the European Union mandates individual states to punish as a crime hate speech done through the internet.[30]
Andorra[edit]
Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person's dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or sex (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.[29]
Armenia[edit]
Armenia has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with ethnic, racial, or religious motives (Criminal Code Article 63).[29]
Austria[edit]
Austria has a penalty-enhancement statute for reasons like repeating a crime, being especially cruel, using others helpless state, playing a leading role in a crime, or committing a crime with racist, xenophobic or especially reprehensible motivation (Penal Code section 33(5)).[31]
Azerbaijan[edit]
Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).[29]
Belarus[edit]
Belarus has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, and religious hatred and discord.[29][32]
Belgium[edit]
Belgium's Act of 25 February 2003 (“"aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism"”) establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of sex, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also "provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination."[29] The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 ("on strengthening legislation against racism"), requires the Centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.[29]
Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]
The Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (enacted 2003) "contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2).”"[33]
Bulgaria[edit]
Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions "have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria."[34]
Croatia[edit]
Croatian Penal code explicitly defines hate crime in article 89 as "any crime committed out of hatred for someones race, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social background, asset, birth, education, social condition, age, health condition or other attribute".[35] On 1 January 2013 new Penal code was introduced with the recognition of a hate crime based on a "race, skin color, religion, national or ethnic background, sexual orientation or gender identity".[36]
Czech Republic[edit]
The Czech legislation finds its constitutional basis in the principles of equality and non-discrimination contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. From there, we can trace two basic lines of protection against hate-motivated incidents: one passes through criminal law, the other through civil law. The current Czech criminal legislation has implications both for decisions about guilt (affecting the decision whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty) and decisions concerning sentencing (affecting the extent of the punishment imposed). It has three levels, to wit:
a circumstance determining whether an act is a crime – hate motivation is included in the basic constituent elements. If hate motivation is not proven, conviction for a hate crime is not possible.
a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty – a hate motivation is included in the qualified constituent elements for some types of crimes (murder, bodily harm). If hate motivation is not proven, the penalty is imposed according to the scale specified for the basic constituent elements of the crime.
general aggravating circumstance – the court is obligated to take the hate motivation into account as a general aggravating circumstance and determines the amount of penalty to impose. Nevertheless, it is not possible to add together a general aggravating circumstance and a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty. (see Annex for details)
Current criminal legislation does not provide for special penalties for acts that target another by reason of his sexual orientation, age or health status. Only the constituent elements of the criminal offense of Incitement to hatred towards a group of persons or to the curtailment of their rights and freedoms, and general aggravating circumstances include attacking a so-called different group of people. Such a group of people can then, of course, be also one defined by sexual orientation, age or health status. A certain disparity has thus been created between, on the one hand, those groups of people who are victimized by reason of their skin color, faith, nationality, ethnicity or political persuasion and enjoy increased protection, and, on the other hand, those groups that are victimized by reason of their sexual orientation, age or health status and are not granted increased protection. This gap in protection against attacks motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, age or health status cannot be successfully bridged by interpretation. Interpretation by analogy is inadmissible in criminal law, sanctionable motivations being exhaustively enumerated.[37]
Denmark[edit]
Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, "section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender's motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence."[38] In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.[29][39]
Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.[29]
Finland[edit]
Finnish Criminal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes "committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group" an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.[29][40] In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnish: kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is conveyed. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Finnish: sotaan yllyttäminen), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of
1.illegal violence directed against foreign country or her citizens,
2.systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defense
3.public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
4.public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.[41]
France[edit]
In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).[29][42]
Georgia[edit]
"There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia."[29]
Germany[edit]
The German Criminal Code does not have hate crime legislation, but instead criminalizes hate speech under a number of different laws, including Volksverhetzung. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However, within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that "the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the willfulness involved in its commission."[43] can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment; under this statute, hate and bias have been taken into consideration in sentencing in past cases.[44]
Hate crimes are not specifically tracked by German police, but have been studied separately: a recently published EU "Report on Racism" finds that racially motivated attacks are frequent in Germany, identifying 18142 incidences for 2006, of which 17597 were motivated by right wing ideologies, both about a 14% year-by-year increase.[45] Relative to the size of the population, this represents an eightfold higher rate of hate crimes than reported in the US during the same period.[46] Awareness of hate crimes and right-wing extremism in Germany remains low.[47]
Greece[edit]
Article Law 927/1979 "Section 1,1 penalises incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalises the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds."[48] Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.[49]
Hungary[edit]
Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim's actual or perceived national, ethnic, religious status or membership in a particular social group are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code.[29] This article was added to the Code in 1996.[50]
Iceland[edit]
Section 233a of the Icelandic Penal Code states "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly abuses a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to two years."[51]
Ireland[edit]
"The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989" makes it an offense to incite hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origins, or membership of the Traveller community, an indigenous minority group."[29]
Ireland does not systematically collect hate crime data.[29]
Italy[edit]
Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, the so-called Legge Mancino (Mancino law), contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motivated by racial, ethnic, national, or religious bias.[29]
Kazakhstan[edit]
In Kazakhstan, there are constitutional provisions prohibiting propaganda promoting racial or ethnic superiority.[29]
Kyrgyzstan[edit]
In Kyrgyzstan, "the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes."[52]
Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.[29][53]
Russia[edit]
Article 29 of the penal code of the Russian Federation bans incitement to riot for the sake of stirring societal, racial, ethnic, and religious hatred as well as the promotion of the superiority of the same. Article 282 further includes protections against incitement of hatred (including gender) via various means of communication, instilling criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.[citation needed]
Spain[edit]
Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness or disability.[29]
Sweden[edit]
Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or "other similar circumstance" of the victim.[29][54]
United Kingdom[edit]
For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.[55] The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) amended sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.[56] For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose.[57] A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated. The Act requires a court also to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:
(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on— (i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)— (i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.[58][59]
In 2013, police in Greater Manchester began recording attacks on goths, punks and other alternative culture groups as hate crimes.[60]
On December 4, 2013 Essex Police launched the ‘Stop the Hate’ initiative as part of a concerted effort to find new ways to tackle hate crime in Essex. The launch was marked by a conference in Chelmsford, hosted by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, which brought together 220 delegates from a range of partner organisations involved in the field.The theme of the conference was ‘Report it to Sort it’ and the emphasis was on encouraging people to tell police if they have been a victim of hate crime, whether it be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.[61]
Scotland[edit]
In Scottish Common law[citation needed] the courts can take any aggravating factor into account when sentencing someone found guilty of an offence. There is specific legislation dealing with the offences of incitement of racial hatred, racially aggravated harassment and offences aggravated by religious prejudice. A Scottish Executive working group examined the issue of hate crime and ways of combating crime motivated by social prejudice, reporting in 2004.[62] Its main recommendations were not implemented, but in their manifestos for the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 several political parties included commitments to legislate in this area, including the Scottish National Party who now form the Scottish Government. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 19 May 2008 by Patrick Harvie MSP,[63] having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government, and was passed unanimously by the parliament on 3 June 2009.[64]
Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws[edit]



 A photograph of the famous fresco Bathing of the Christ, after being vandalized by a Kosovo Albanian mob during the 2004 unrest in Kosovo
Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, San Marino, Slovenia and Turkey have no hate crime laws.[29]
North America[edit]
Canada[edit]
“In Canada the legal definition of hate crime can be found in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code”. [65]
In 1996 the federal government amended a section of the Criminal Code that pertains to sentencing. Specifically, section 718.2. The section states (with regard to the hate crime):
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.'' [65]
A vast majority (84 per cent) of hate crime perpetrators were “male, with an average age of just under 30. Less than 10 of those accused had criminal records, and less than 5 per cent had previous hate crime involvement (ibid O’Grady 2010 page 163.).” [66] “Only 4 percent of hate crimes were linked to an organized or extremist group (Silver et al., 2004).” [67]
As of 2004, Jewish people were the largest ethnic group targeted by hate crimes, followed by blacks, Muslims, South Asians, and homosexuals (Silver et al., 2004).[67]
During the Nazi regime, anti-Semitism was a cause of hate related violence in Canada. For example, on August 16, 1933 there was a baseball game in Toronto and one team was made up of mostly Jewish players. At the end of the game, a group of Nazi sympathizers unfolded a Swastika flag and shouted ‘Heil Hitler’. That event erupted into a brawl that had Jews and Italians against Anglo Canadians and the brawl went on for hours.[65]
The first time someone was charged with hate speech over the internet occurred on 27 March 1996. “A Winnipeg teenager was arrested by the police for sending an email to a local political activist that contained the message ‘Death to homosexuals’ it’s prescribed in the Bible! Better watch out next Gay Pride Week.’ (Nairne, 1996).”[67]
Robert suggests that “Canada lags behind other nations in collecting comprehensive statistics on hate crime.” [68][context?]
United States[edit]
Main article: Hate crime laws in the United States



 Shepard (center), Louvon Harris (left), Betty Bryd Boatner (right) with President Barack Obama in 2009 to promote the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime laws were passed after the American Civil War, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan. The modern era of hate-crime legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." However, "The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.".[69]
The first state hate-crime statute, California's Section 190.2, was passed in 1978 and provided for penalty enhancement in cases where murder was motivated by prejudice against four "protected status" categories: race, religion, color, and national origin. Washington included ancestry in a statute passed in 1981. Alaska included creed and sex in 1982 and later disability, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. In the 1990s some state laws began to include age, marital status, membership in the armed forces, and membership in civil rights organizations.[70]
Criminal acts which could be considered hate crimes in various states included aggravated assault, assault and battery, vandalism, rape, threats and intimidation, arson, trespassing, stalking, and various "lesser" acts until in 1987 California state legislation included all crimes as possible hate crimes.[71]
Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity." In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added actual or perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics.[72]
According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8% nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46% were classified as intimidation and 31.9% as simple assaults. 81% of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction.[73]
However, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, the number of hate crimes decreased to 7,624 incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies.[74] These incidents included 9 murders and 2 rapes(out of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007).[75]
Attorney General Eric Holder said in June 2009 that recent killings show the need for a tougher U.S. hate crimes law to stop "violence masquerading as political activism".[76]
The 2011 hate crime statistics show 46.9% were motivated by race and 20.8% by sexual orientation.[77]
Prosecutions of hate crimes have been difficult in the United States. Recently though, state governments have attempted to re-investigate and re-try past hate crimes. One prominent example is Mississippi's decision in 1990 to retry Byron De La Beckwith for the murder of Medgar Evers, a prominent figure in the NAACP.[78] This would be the first time in U.S. history that an unresolved civil rights case would be re-opened. Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was tried for the murder on two previous occasions and it resulted with a hung jury. However, he was finally sentenced to life in prison in 1994. Presented with testimony of two FBI informants who had infiltrated the KKK, the missing transcript from the first trial, the relocation of missing witnesses, numerous witness admissions of Beckwith bragging about his role in the murder and Beckwith’s own racist writings, a mixed race jury found Beckwith guilty of murder. Even though De La Beckwith was 73 years of age when he was sentenced to life in prison, the 1994 conviction has been interpreted as a way for Mississippi to shed its racist past.[79]
South America[edit]
Brazil[edit]
In Brazil, hate crime laws focus on racism, racial injury, and other special bias-motivated crimes such as, for example, murder by death squads[80] and genocide on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.[81] Murder by death squads and genocide are legally classified as "hideous crimes" (crimes hediondos in Portuguese).[82]
The crimes of racism and racial injury, although similar, are enforced slightly differently.[83] Article 140, 3rd paragraph, of the Penal Code establishes a harsher penalty, from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years, for injuries motivated by "elements referring to race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, or the condition of being an aged or disabled person".[84] On the other side, Law 7716/1989 covers "crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin".[85]
In addition, the Brazilian Constitution defines as a "fundamental goal of the Republic" (Article 3rd, clause IV) "to promote the wealth of all, with no prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age, and any other forms of discrimination".[86]
Chile[edit]
The Chilean Congress began a discussion on a piece of anti-discrimination in 2005, which was eventually passed in November, 2011. This legislation included an article that spoke expressly against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. However, on January 4, 2012, the Constitutional Tribunal (composed of senators from Chile's Independent Democratic Union) repealed the 2nd Article of the legislation (which applied primarily to sexual diversity).[87]
On April 5, 2012, Chile's Congress passed most of an anti-discrimination law that would make it a crime to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, appearance or handicap.[88]
Support and opposition to hate crime laws[edit]
Support for hate crime laws[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2015)
Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm.[citation needed] It is said[by whom?] that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people.[citation needed] Furthermore, it is asserted[by whom?] that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[7] The beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters during the same riot is also an example that supports this argument.
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.[89] Whilst in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court defined "fighting words" as "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[90]
Opposition to hate crime laws[edit]
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination is in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics.[91] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[92][93][94][95][96][97][98]
In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[99] Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[100] Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.[101]
See also[edit]
Disability hate crime
Communal violence
Fighting Discrimination
Hate group
Thoughtcrime
Violence against LGBT people
Bashing (pejorative)
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Stotzer, R. (June 2007). "Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups" (PDF). Williams Institute. Retrieved 2012-03-17. "A hate crime or bias motivated crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally selects the victim because of his or her membership in a certain group."
2.Jump up ^ "FBI — Methodology". FBI.
3.^ Jump up to: a b c Streissguth, Tom (2003). Hate Crimes (Library in a Book), p.3. ISBN 0-8160-4879-7.
4.Jump up ^ http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/
5.Jump up ^ "Hate Crimes". FBI. Retrieved May 26, 2015.
6.Jump up ^ Fred Fausz, "Jamestown at 400: Caught Between a Rock and a Slippery Slope", History News Network, George Mason University, 7 May 2007
7.^ Jump up to: a b "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-11-14.
8.Jump up ^ "'Hate Crimes' and Double Standards" By Stuart Taylor, Jr. The Atlantic. May 29, 2007.
9.^ Jump up to: a b "Hate Crime Statistics, 2010". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
10.Jump up ^ Meyer, Doug (2010). "Evaluating the Severity of Hate-motivated Violence: Intersectional Differences among LGBT Hate Crime Victims". Sociology 44 (5): 980–995. doi:10.1177/0038038510375737.
11.Jump up ^ Shepard, Mathew; Byrd, James Jr. (2011–2014). "Hate Crimes Law". Human Rights Campaign.
12.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2008. Retrieved May 17, 2014
13.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2009. Retrieved May 17, 2014
14.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2010. Retrieved May 17, 2014
15.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2014
16.Jump up ^ FBI Hate Crimes 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2014
17.Jump up ^ Violent Hate Crimes include: Homicide, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault and Sexual Assault/Rape
18.^ Jump up to: a b In U.S., 77% Identify as Christian. Retrieved May 17, 2014
19.^ Jump up to: a b How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? Retrieved May 17, 2014
20.^ Jump up to: a b c d e American Fact Finder. Retrieved May 17, 2014
21.^ Jump up to: a b c "Nones" on the Rise Retrieved May 17, 2014
22.Jump up ^ "Hate Crime Victimization, 2003-2011" (PDF). U.S. Department of Justice.
23.Jump up ^ Angelari, Marguerite (1997). "Hate Crime Statutes: A Promising Tool for Fighting Violence Against Women". In Karen J. Maschke. Pornography, sex work, and hate speech. Taylor & Francis.
24.Jump up ^ Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. (2013). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies. Sage.
25.Jump up ^ McPhail, Beverly (2003). "Gender-Bias Hate Crimes: A Review". In Barbara Perry. Hate and bias crime: a reader. Psychology Press.
26.Jump up ^ Herek, Gregory M.; Gillis, J. Roy; Cogan, Jeanine C. (1999). "Psychological Sequelae of Hate-Crime Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67 (6): 945–951. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.945. PMID 10596515.
27.Jump up ^ "Crown Policy Manual" (PDF). 21 March 2005. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
28.Jump up ^ Cox, William T. L.; Abramson, Lyn Y.; Devine, Patricia G.; Hollon, Steven D. (2012). "Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective". Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (5): 427–449. doi:10.1177/1745691612455204.
29.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u "Michael McClintock: ''Everyday Fears: A Survey of Violent Hate Crimes in Europe and North America''". Humanrightsfirst.org. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
30.Jump up ^ Arias, Martha L. https://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2422
31.Jump up ^ § 33 StGB Besondere Erschwerungsgründe, StGB, accessed 2015-02-15.
32.Jump up ^ Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, § 64 (1), para. 9 (translated from the Russian), June 9, 1999.
33.Jump up ^ Office of the High Representative, Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, January 2003.
34.Jump up ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Bulgaria,” adopted on June 18, 1999, and made public on March 21, 2000.
35.Jump up ^ "71 28.6.2006 Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Kaznenog zakona". Narodne-novine.nn.hr. 2006-06-28. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
36.Jump up ^ "Centar za LGBT ravnopravnost » Vlada prihvatila prijedloge Centra za LGBT ravnopravnost". Ravnopravnost.hr. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
37.Jump up ^ "Zpráva o násilí z nenávisti v České republice za rok 2011" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-11-11.
38.Jump up ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Denmark,” adopted on June 16, 2000, and made public on April 3, 2001, para. 9.
39.Jump up ^ Chahrokh, Klug, and Bilger, Migrants, Minorities, and Legislation.
40.Jump up ^ EUMC, “Racism and xenophobia in the E.U.,” p. 51.
41.Jump up ^ Penal Code (39/1889) as of 1006/2004. §§ 6:5.1.4 (ethnic hatred as an aggravating factor), 11:8 (ethnic agitation) and 12:2 (warmongering). The points cited remain in force on the day of retrieval, checked from the Finnish version: Rikoslaki. The Government proposal HE 55/2007 will move the § 11:8 to §11:10 without changing the content, if the proposal is passed by the Parliament of Finland. Retrieved 11-23-2007.
42.Jump up ^ Loi n° 2003–88 du 3 février 2003 visant à aggraver les peines punissant les infractions à caractère raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe
43.Jump up ^ "Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)". Iuscomp.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
44.Jump up ^ Marc Coester (2008): Das Konzept der Hate Crimes aus den USA unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Rechtsextremismus in Deutschland. Peter Lang: Frankfurt/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wien
45.Jump up ^ "EU Xenophobia Report: Racism On the Rise in Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
46.Jump up ^ "FBI — 2006 Hate Crime in the U.S". Fbi.gov. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
47.Jump up ^ "SPIEGEL ONLINE Interview with Racism Expert: 'Awareness of Ethnic Discrimination Is Low in Germany' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
48.Jump up ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Greece,” adopted on 1999-12-10, and made public on 2000-06-27.
49.Jump up ^ Sitaropoulos, N.: “Executive Summary on Race Equality Directive, State of Play in Greece, section 5, 2003-10-12. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
50.Jump up ^ "United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Concluding Observations/Comments - Hungary". unhchr.ch.
51.Jump up ^ "Icelandic Penal Code (in Icelandic)". Althingi.is. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
52.Jump up ^ CERD, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention; Concluding Observations: Kyrgyzstan, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
53.Jump up ^ “Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2004 (Events of 2003), International Helsinki Federation,” 2004-06-23. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
54.Jump up ^ "Swedish Penal Code" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-01-21.
55.Jump up ^ "Crime and Disorder Act 1998". legislation.gov.uk.
56.Jump up ^ http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_5
57.Jump up ^ Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
58.Jump up ^ Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
59.Jump up ^ "Hate crime" legislation is distinct from "hate speech" legislation. See Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom.
60.Jump up ^ "Manchester police to record attacks on goths, emos and punks as hate crimes". The Guardian (London). 2013-04-03.
61.Jump up ^ "Launch of ‘Stop the Hate’ initiative". Stop the hate. 2013-12-04. Retrieved 2014-07-12.
62.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
63.Jump up ^ "Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill". Scottish.parliament.uk. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
64.Jump up ^ MSPs approve new hate crime laws BBC News 3 June 2009
65.^ Jump up to: a b c O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
66.Jump up ^ O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
67.^ Jump up to: a b c O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
68.Jump up ^ O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
69.Jump up ^ Streissguth (2003), p.20.
70.Jump up ^ Streissguth (2003), p.20-21.
71.Jump up ^ Streissguth (2003), p.21.
72.Jump up ^ State Hate Crime Laws, Anti-Defamation League, June 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
73.Jump up ^ Statistics, 2006 Hate Crime Statistics, 2006,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
74.Jump up ^ Statistics, 2007 Hate Crime Statistics, 2007,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
75.Jump up ^ Statistics, 2007 FBI Crime in the United States 2007,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
76.Jump up ^ "Attorney general urges new hate crimes law – Crime & courts". MSNBC. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
77.Jump up ^ "FBI releases 2011 hate crime statistics". Lakeconews.com. 2012-12-11. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
78.Jump up ^ Labuda, P. (2011). "Racial Reconciliation in Mississippi: An Evaluation of the Proposal to Establish a Mississippi Truth and Reconciliation Commission.". Harvard Blackletter Law Journal 271: 1–48.
79.Jump up ^ Alston, A.A. and Dickerson, J.L. (2009). Devil’s Sanctuary: An Eye-Witness History of Mississippi Hate Crimes. Chicago, IL: Lawrence Hill Books.
80.Jump up ^ Law 8072/1990, Article 1st, I
81.Jump up ^ Law 2889/1956, Article 1st
82.Jump up ^ Law 8072/1990 (aforementioned link), Article 1st, I and single paragraph.
83.Jump up ^ "Racismo ou injúria racial? - Boletim Jurídico". Boletimjuridico.com.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
84.Jump up ^ "DEL2848compilado". Planalto.gov.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
85.Jump up ^ "L7716". Planalto.gov.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
86.Jump up ^ http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao/Constituiçao_Compilado.htm
87.Jump up ^ Matthew Jenkin (2012-03-30). "UN calls for harsher hate crime laws in Chile". Gay Star News. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
88.Jump up ^ "Chile's Congress approves most of hate crime law". BBC News. 2012-04-05.
89.Jump up ^ "Wisconsin v. Mitchell". Enotes.com. Retrieved 2011-10-12.
90.Jump up ^ Sumner, L.W. (2005), "Hate crimes, literature, and speech", in Frey, R.G.; Heath Wellman, Christopher, A companion to applied ethics, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Oxford, UK Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 89–101, doi:10.1002/9780470996621.ch11, ISBN 9781405133456.
91.Jump up ^ R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
92.Jump up ^ The Essayist (1998). Hate Crime Premise. 24 Jul. 1998.[dead link]
93.Jump up ^ Evenson, Brad (2003). Looking for thoughtcrime to crimestop. National Post. February 8, 2003.
94.Jump up ^ Schwartz, L., I.T. Ulit, & D. Morgan (2006). "Straight talk about hate crimes bills: Anti-gay, anti-transgender bias stall federal hate crimes legislation". Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law 7 (2): 171–186.
95.Jump up ^ Icke, David (2003). Tales from the Time Loop. Bridge of Love. ISBN 0-9538810-4-0. [2]
96.Jump up ^ Smith, Peter J. (2007). Democrats refuse religious freedom amendment to hate crimes bill. LifeSite, 26 April 2007.
97.Jump up ^ Kamine, Wendy. The Return of the Thought Police: "Hate crime" legislation is an assault on civil liberties. The Wall Street Journal. October 28, 2007.
98.Jump up ^ Wolski, Chris (1999). Hate Crime Laws Will Spawn Thought Police. Capitalism Magazine Website. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
99.Jump up ^ Jacobs, James B. & Kimberly Potter. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 130–144
100.Jump up ^ Troy, Daniel E. (1999-08-04). "AEI – Short Publications". Aei.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
101.Jump up ^ "Constitutional Challenges to Hate Crimes Statutes". Adl.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Hate crimes.
hate-crime.org
Hate crimes information, by Dr. Gregory Herek
Hate Crime Survey, annual Human Rights First report on the prevalence of hate crimes in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe region.
Hate Crime Statistics, annual FBI/U.S. Department of Justice report on the prevalence of hate crimes in the United States. Required by the Hate Crime Statistics Act.
A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes, a publication by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, part of the U.S. Department of Justice. Many parts of this article have been adapted from this document.
Tolerance.org, a web project sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center
Peabody, Michael "Thought & Crime," Liberty Magazine, March/April 2008, review of recently proposed hate crime legislation and criminal intent issues.
"Hate Crime." Oxford Bibliographies Online: Criminology.
OSCE Hate Crime Reporting


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Racism

































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Abuse























































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics


















































































































































































LGBT pride flag






























































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal


  


Categories: Hate crime
Abuse
Crime by type
Crimes
LGBT rights by issue
Discrimination
Racism
Aggression


















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Български
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Français
Frysk
한국어
Italiano
עברית
Latina
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 June 2015, at 20:29.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime