Secular Jewish culture, Jack Mormon and other Wikipedia pages

Morality and religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religion and morality)
Jump to: navigation, search

Morality and religion is the relationship between religious views and morals. Many religions have value frameworks regarding personal behavior meant to guide adherents in determining between right and wrong. These include the Triple Jems of Jainism, Judaism's Halacha, Islam's Sharia, Catholicism's Canon Law, Buddhism's Eightfold Path, and Zoroastrianism's "good thoughts, good words, and good deeds" concept, among others.[1] These frameworks are outlined and interpreted by various sources such as holy books, oral and written traditions, and religious leaders. Many of these share tenets with secular value frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, and utilitarianism.
Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not depend upon religion although this is "an almost automatic assumption."[2] According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[3] Morality is an active process which is, "at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason, that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal consideration to the interests of all those affected by what one does."[4]
Value judgments can vary greatly between religions, past and present. People in various religious traditions, such as Christianity, may derive ideas of right and wrong by the rules and laws set forth in their respective authoritative guides and by their religious leaders.[5] Equating morality to adherence to authoritative commands in a holy book is the Divine Command Theory.[6] Polytheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism generally draw from a broader canon of work.[7] There has been interest in the relationship between religion and crime and other behavior that does not adhere to contemporary laws and social norms in various countries. Studies conducted in recent years have explored these relationships, but the results have been mixed and sometimes contradictory.[8] The ability of religious faiths to provide value frameworks that are seen as useful is a debated matter. Religious commentators have asserted that a moral life cannot be led without an absolute lawgiver as a guide. Other observers assert that moral behavior does not rely on religious tenets, and secular commentators point to ethical challenges within various religions that conflict with contemporary social norms.


Contents  [hide]
1 Relationship between religion and morality
2 Religion and societal mores
3 Religious frameworks
4 Religion and crime
5 Criticism of religious values
6 Secular morality
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References

Relationship between religion and morality[edit]
Within the wide range of ethical traditions, religious traditions co-exist with secular value frameworks such as humanism, utilitarianism, and others. There are many types of religious values. Modern monotheistic religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and to a certain degree others such as Sikhism, define right and wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective gods and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith. Polytheistic religious traditions tend to be less absolute. For example, within Buddhism, the intention of the individual and the circumstances should be accounted for to determine if an action is right or wrong.[9] A further disparity between the morals of religious traditions is pointed out by Barbara Stoler Miller, who states that, in Hinduism, "practically, right and wrong are decided according to the categories of social rank, kinship, and stages of life. For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand".[10]
According to Stephen Gaukroger, "It was generally assumed in the 17th century that religion provided the unique basis for morality, and that without religion, there could be no morality."[11] This view slowly shifted over time. In 1690, Pierre Bayle asserted that religion "is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality."[12] Modern sources separate the two concepts. For example, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics says that,

For many religious people, morality and religion are the same or inseparable; for them either morality is part of religion or their religion is their morality. For others, especially for nonreligious people, morality and religion are distinct and separable; religion may be immoral or nonmoral, and morality may or should be nonreligous. Even for some religious people the two are different and separable; they may hold that religion should be moral and morality should be, but they agree that they may not be.[13]
Richard Paula and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking assert that "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law". They separate the concept of ethics from these topics, stating that

The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being of others—that warrant our praise—and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant our criticism.[14]
They note problems that could arise if religions defined ethics, such as (1) religious practices like "torturing unbelievers or burning them alive" potentially being labeled "ethical", and (2) the lack of a common religious baseline across humanity because religions provide different theological definitions for the idea of sin.[14] They further note that various documents, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights lay out "transcultural" and "trans-religious" ethical concepts and principles such as slavery, genocide, torture, sexism, racism, murder, assault, fraud, deceit, and intimidation which require no reliance on religion (or social convention) for us to understand they are "ethically wrong".[14]
Religion and societal mores[edit]
According to critic Gregory S. Paul, theists assert that societal belief in a creator god "is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society."[15] Yet, empirical evidence indicates the opposite.[16] High rates of religiosity are correlated with "higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies."[15] Paul concludes that

The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.[17]
Religious frameworks[edit]
Religions provide different ways of dealing with moral dilemmas. For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in Hinduism, which recognizes that it "may be inevitable and indeed necessary" in certain circumstances.[18] In Christian traditions, certain acts are viewed in more absolute terms, such as abortion or divorce. In the latter case, a 2008 study by the Barna Group found that some denominations have a significantly higher divorce rate than those in non-religious demographic groups (atheists and agnostics). However Catholics and Evangelical Christians had the lowest divorce rates and the agnostic/atheist group had by far the lowest number of married couples to begin with.[19]
According to Thomas Dixon, "Many today ... argue that religious beliefs are necessary to provide moral guidance and standards of virtuous conduct in an otherwise corrupt, materialistic, and degenerate world."[20] In the same vein, Christian theologian Ron Rhodes has remarked that "it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good."[21] Thomas Dixon states, "Religions certainly do provide a framework within which people can learn the difference between right and wrong."[20]
Religion and crime[edit]
The overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear. A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."[22] Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[23] an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.[24] In another response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[25] His conclusion is that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it".
Some works indicate that lower levels of religiosity in a society may be correlated with lower crime rates—especially violent crime. Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, Society without God, notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[26][a] The 2005 Paul study stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.[27][b] On April 26, 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects' pro-social sentiments were published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as lending their possessions and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train. Religious people also had lower scores when it came to seeing how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in other ways, such as in giving money or food to a homeless person and to non-believers.[28][29]
Other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior[30][31]—for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[32] Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[33] with some studies establishing this connection.[34] A meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior".[35] However, in his books about the materialism in Americas Evangelical Churches Ron Sider accuses fellow Christians of failing to do better than their secular counterparts in the percentage adhering to widely held moral standards (e.g., lying, theft and sexual infidelity).[36]
A Georgia State University study published in the academic journal Theoretical Criminology suggests that religion helps criminals to justify their crimes and might "encourage" it.[37] The research concluded that "many street offenders anticipate an early death, making them less prone to delay gratification, more likely to discount the future costs of crime, and thus more likely to offend".[38]
Criticism of religious values[edit]
Religious values can diverge from commonly-held contemporary moral positions, such as those on murder, mass atrocities, and slavery. For example, Simon Blackburn states that "apologists for Hinduism defend or explain away its involvement with the caste system, and apologists for Islam defend or explain away its harsh penal code or its attitude to women and infidels".[39] In regard to Christianity, he states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women".[40] He provides examples such as the phrase in Exodus 22:18 that has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America": "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and notes that the Old Testament God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".[41] Blackburn notes morally suspect themes in the Bible's New Testament as well.[42]
Philosopher David Hume stated that, "the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere.".[43]
Bertrand Russell stated that, "there are also, in most religions, specific ethical tenets which do definite harm. The Catholic condemnation of birth control, if it could prevail, would make the mitigation of poverty and the abolition of war impossible. The Hindu beliefs that the cow is a sacred animal and that it is wicked for widows to remarry cause quite needless suffering."[44] He asserts that

You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs....You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the dimunition of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world.[45]
According to Paul Copan, Jewish laws in the bible show an evolution of moral standards towards protecting the vulnerable, imposing a death penalty on those pursuing forced slavery and identifying slaves as persons and not property.[46]
According to Bertrand Russell, "Clergymen almost necessarily fail in two ways as teachers of morals. They condemn acts which do no harm and they condone acts which do great harm."[47] He cites an example of a clergyman who was warned by a physician that his wife would die if she had another (her tenth) child, but impregnated her regardless which resulted in her death. "No one condemned him; he retained his benefice and married again. So long as clergymen continue to condone cruelty and condemn "innocent" pleasure, they can only do harm as guardians of the morals of the young."[48]
Russell further states that, "The sense of sin which dominates many children and young people and often lasts on into later life is a misery and a source of distortion that serves no useful purpose of any sort or kind."[49] Russel allows that religious sentiments have, historically, sometimes led to morally acceptable behavior, but asserts that, "in the present day, [1954] such good as might be done by imputing a theological origin to morals is inextricably bound up with such grave evils that the good becomes insignificant in comparison."[50]
Secular morality[edit]
Main article: Secular morality



All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.[51]
The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, 10 September 2012



 The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso in 2007
There are number of secular value frameworks, such as consequentialism, freethought, humanism, and utilitarianism. Yet, there have been opposing views about the ability of both religious and secular moral frameworks to provide useful guides to right and wrong actions.
Various non-religious commentators have supported the ability of secular value frameworks to provide useful guides. Bernard Williams argued that, "Either one's motives for following the moral word of God are moral motives, or they are not. If they are, then one is already equipped with moral motivations, and the introduction of God adds nothing extra. But if they are not moral motives, then they will be motives of such a kind that they cannot appropriately motivate morality at all ... we reach the conclusion that any appeal to God in this connection either adds to nothing at all, or it adds the wrong sort of thing."[52] Other observers criticize religious morals as incompatible with modern social norms. For example, popular atheist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that are considered today to be morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history.[citation needed] According to Paul Copan, the position of the Bible to slaves is a positive one for the slaves in that Jewish laws imposed a death penalty on those pursuing slavery and treated slaves as persons, not property.[46]
See also[edit]
Ethics in religion
Morality without religion
Criticism of Islam#Morality
Notes[edit]
a.^ Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth" (Zuckerman 2008, pp. 5–6).b.^ The authors also state that "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies,"[53] and "[t]he least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards."[54] They argue for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[23] an analysis published later in the same journal argues that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions in the research.[24]
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Esptein, Greg M. (2010). Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe. New York: HarperCollins. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-06-167011-4.
2.Jump up ^ Rachels, (ed) James; Rachels, (ed) Stuart (2011). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-078-03824-3.
3.Jump up ^ Childress, (ed) James F.; Macquarrie, (ed) John (1986). The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. p. 401. ISBN 0-664-20940-8.
4.Jump up ^ Rachels, (ed) James; Rachels, (ed) Stuart (2011). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-078-03824-3.
5.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
6.Jump up ^ Rachels, (ed) James; Rachels, (ed) Stuart (2011). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-078-03824-3.
7.Jump up ^ Bodhippriya Subhadra Siriwardena, 'The Buddhist perspective of lay morality', 1996
8.Jump up ^ Edgar Saint George, "Religion's Effects On Crime Rates"
9.Jump up ^ Peggy Morgan, "Buddhism." In Morgan, Peggy; Lawton, Clive A., eds. (2007). Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions (Second ed.). Columbia University Press. pp. 61, 88–89. ISBN 978-0-7486-2330-3.
10.Jump up ^ Miller, Barbara Stoler (2004). The Bhagavad Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War. New York: Random House. p. 3. ISBN 0-553-21365-2.
11.Jump up ^ Gaukroger, Stephen (2012). Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-19-960669-6.
12.Jump up ^ Gaukroger, Stephen (2012). Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-19-960669-6.
13.Jump up ^ Childress, (ed) James F.; Macquarrie, (ed) John (1986). The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. p. 400. ISBN 0-664-20940-8.
14.^ Jump up to: a b c Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. pp. np. ISBN 0-944-583-17-2.
15.^ Jump up to: a b Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion & Society 7: 1. Retrieved 8 October 2012. Archived copy
16.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion & Society 7: 7–8. Retrieved 8 October 2012. According to Paul, "Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolution America performs poorly."
17.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion & Society 7: 7–8. Retrieved 8 October 2012.
18.Jump up ^ Werner Menski, "Hinduism." In Morgan, Peggy; Lawton, Clive A., eds. (2007). Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions (Second ed.). Columbia University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-7486-2330-3.
19.Jump up ^ Barna Group (31 March 2008). "New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released". Barna Group. Retrieved 19 November 2011.
20.^ Jump up to: a b Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7.
21.Jump up ^ Ron Rhodes. "Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists". Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
22.Jump up ^ Baier, Colin J.; Wright, Bradley R. E. (February 2001). ""If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments": A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Religion on Crime" (PDF). 38. No. 1. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. p. 3. Retrieved 20 November 2011. Original in italics.
23.^ Jump up to: a b Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7.
24.^ Jump up to: a b Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith; Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
25.Jump up ^ Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS
26.Jump up ^ Zuckerman, Phil. Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment. New York: New York University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8147-9714-3. Zuckerman's work is based on his studies conducted during a 14-month period in Scandinavia in 2005–2006.
27.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 4, 5, 8, and 10.
28.Jump up ^ Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers by Science Daily
29.Jump up ^ Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg, Paul K. Piff, Katharine Clark, Dacher Keltner and Sarina R. Saturn My Brother’s Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals
30.Jump up ^ KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x
31.Jump up ^ SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3), 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x
32.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
33.Jump up ^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; doi:10.1177/0093854806293485
34.Jump up ^ For example: Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263–274.
Burkett, S.,& White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455–462.
Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
Cochran, J. K.,& Akers, R. L. (1989). Beyond Hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198–225.
Evans, T. D.,Cullen, F. T.,Burton, V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway, R. G.,Payne, G. L.,& Kethineni, S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43–70.
Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s": Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251–266.
Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952–958.
Johnson, B. R.,Larson, D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377–391.
Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323–340.
Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
35.Jump up ^ Baier, C. J.,& Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3–21.
36.Jump up ^ See, for instance, Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005). Sider quotes extensively from polling research by The Barna Group showing that moral behavior of evangelical Christians is unexemplary.
37.Jump up ^ "New Study Suggests Religion May Help Criminals Justify Their Crimes". www.slate.com. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
38.Jump up ^ Volkan Topalli, Timothy Brezina, Mindy Bernhardt (February 2013). "With God on my side: The paradoxical relationship between religious belief and criminality among hardcore street offenders". Theoretical Criminology.
39.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
40.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
41.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 10, 12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
42.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 11–12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
43.Jump up ^ David Hume, "The Natural History of Religion." In Hitchens, Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.
44.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. vii. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
45.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
46.^ Jump up to: a b Copan, Paul. "Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery? An Overview". Retrieved 5 July 2012.
47.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
48.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. pp. 68–69. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
49.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 166. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
50.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
51.Jump up ^ Dalai Lama (10 September 2012). "Dalai Lama". Facebook. Facebook. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
52.Jump up ^ Williams, Bernard (1972). Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 64–65. ISBN 0-521-45729-7.
53.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 4, 5, 8.
54.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 11.
  


Categories: Morality
Religious ethics





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
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 6 June 2015, at 09:58.
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/Morality_and_religion










Morality and religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religion and morality)
Jump to: navigation, search

Morality and religion is the relationship between religious views and morals. Many religions have value frameworks regarding personal behavior meant to guide adherents in determining between right and wrong. These include the Triple Jems of Jainism, Judaism's Halacha, Islam's Sharia, Catholicism's Canon Law, Buddhism's Eightfold Path, and Zoroastrianism's "good thoughts, good words, and good deeds" concept, among others.[1] These frameworks are outlined and interpreted by various sources such as holy books, oral and written traditions, and religious leaders. Many of these share tenets with secular value frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, and utilitarianism.
Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not depend upon religion although this is "an almost automatic assumption."[2] According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[3] Morality is an active process which is, "at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason, that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal consideration to the interests of all those affected by what one does."[4]
Value judgments can vary greatly between religions, past and present. People in various religious traditions, such as Christianity, may derive ideas of right and wrong by the rules and laws set forth in their respective authoritative guides and by their religious leaders.[5] Equating morality to adherence to authoritative commands in a holy book is the Divine Command Theory.[6] Polytheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism generally draw from a broader canon of work.[7] There has been interest in the relationship between religion and crime and other behavior that does not adhere to contemporary laws and social norms in various countries. Studies conducted in recent years have explored these relationships, but the results have been mixed and sometimes contradictory.[8] The ability of religious faiths to provide value frameworks that are seen as useful is a debated matter. Religious commentators have asserted that a moral life cannot be led without an absolute lawgiver as a guide. Other observers assert that moral behavior does not rely on religious tenets, and secular commentators point to ethical challenges within various religions that conflict with contemporary social norms.


Contents  [hide]
1 Relationship between religion and morality
2 Religion and societal mores
3 Religious frameworks
4 Religion and crime
5 Criticism of religious values
6 Secular morality
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References

Relationship between religion and morality[edit]
Within the wide range of ethical traditions, religious traditions co-exist with secular value frameworks such as humanism, utilitarianism, and others. There are many types of religious values. Modern monotheistic religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and to a certain degree others such as Sikhism, define right and wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective gods and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith. Polytheistic religious traditions tend to be less absolute. For example, within Buddhism, the intention of the individual and the circumstances should be accounted for to determine if an action is right or wrong.[9] A further disparity between the morals of religious traditions is pointed out by Barbara Stoler Miller, who states that, in Hinduism, "practically, right and wrong are decided according to the categories of social rank, kinship, and stages of life. For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand".[10]
According to Stephen Gaukroger, "It was generally assumed in the 17th century that religion provided the unique basis for morality, and that without religion, there could be no morality."[11] This view slowly shifted over time. In 1690, Pierre Bayle asserted that religion "is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality."[12] Modern sources separate the two concepts. For example, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics says that,

For many religious people, morality and religion are the same or inseparable; for them either morality is part of religion or their religion is their morality. For others, especially for nonreligious people, morality and religion are distinct and separable; religion may be immoral or nonmoral, and morality may or should be nonreligous. Even for some religious people the two are different and separable; they may hold that religion should be moral and morality should be, but they agree that they may not be.[13]
Richard Paula and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking assert that "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law". They separate the concept of ethics from these topics, stating that

The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being of others—that warrant our praise—and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant our criticism.[14]
They note problems that could arise if religions defined ethics, such as (1) religious practices like "torturing unbelievers or burning them alive" potentially being labeled "ethical", and (2) the lack of a common religious baseline across humanity because religions provide different theological definitions for the idea of sin.[14] They further note that various documents, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights lay out "transcultural" and "trans-religious" ethical concepts and principles such as slavery, genocide, torture, sexism, racism, murder, assault, fraud, deceit, and intimidation which require no reliance on religion (or social convention) for us to understand they are "ethically wrong".[14]
Religion and societal mores[edit]
According to critic Gregory S. Paul, theists assert that societal belief in a creator god "is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society."[15] Yet, empirical evidence indicates the opposite.[16] High rates of religiosity are correlated with "higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies."[15] Paul concludes that

The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.[17]
Religious frameworks[edit]
Religions provide different ways of dealing with moral dilemmas. For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in Hinduism, which recognizes that it "may be inevitable and indeed necessary" in certain circumstances.[18] In Christian traditions, certain acts are viewed in more absolute terms, such as abortion or divorce. In the latter case, a 2008 study by the Barna Group found that some denominations have a significantly higher divorce rate than those in non-religious demographic groups (atheists and agnostics). However Catholics and Evangelical Christians had the lowest divorce rates and the agnostic/atheist group had by far the lowest number of married couples to begin with.[19]
According to Thomas Dixon, "Many today ... argue that religious beliefs are necessary to provide moral guidance and standards of virtuous conduct in an otherwise corrupt, materialistic, and degenerate world."[20] In the same vein, Christian theologian Ron Rhodes has remarked that "it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good."[21] Thomas Dixon states, "Religions certainly do provide a framework within which people can learn the difference between right and wrong."[20]
Religion and crime[edit]
The overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear. A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."[22] Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[23] an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.[24] In another response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[25] His conclusion is that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it".
Some works indicate that lower levels of religiosity in a society may be correlated with lower crime rates—especially violent crime. Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, Society without God, notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[26][a] The 2005 Paul study stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.[27][b] On April 26, 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects' pro-social sentiments were published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as lending their possessions and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train. Religious people also had lower scores when it came to seeing how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in other ways, such as in giving money or food to a homeless person and to non-believers.[28][29]
Other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior[30][31]—for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[32] Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[33] with some studies establishing this connection.[34] A meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior".[35] However, in his books about the materialism in Americas Evangelical Churches Ron Sider accuses fellow Christians of failing to do better than their secular counterparts in the percentage adhering to widely held moral standards (e.g., lying, theft and sexual infidelity).[36]
A Georgia State University study published in the academic journal Theoretical Criminology suggests that religion helps criminals to justify their crimes and might "encourage" it.[37] The research concluded that "many street offenders anticipate an early death, making them less prone to delay gratification, more likely to discount the future costs of crime, and thus more likely to offend".[38]
Criticism of religious values[edit]
Religious values can diverge from commonly-held contemporary moral positions, such as those on murder, mass atrocities, and slavery. For example, Simon Blackburn states that "apologists for Hinduism defend or explain away its involvement with the caste system, and apologists for Islam defend or explain away its harsh penal code or its attitude to women and infidels".[39] In regard to Christianity, he states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women".[40] He provides examples such as the phrase in Exodus 22:18 that has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America": "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and notes that the Old Testament God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".[41] Blackburn notes morally suspect themes in the Bible's New Testament as well.[42]
Philosopher David Hume stated that, "the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere.".[43]
Bertrand Russell stated that, "there are also, in most religions, specific ethical tenets which do definite harm. The Catholic condemnation of birth control, if it could prevail, would make the mitigation of poverty and the abolition of war impossible. The Hindu beliefs that the cow is a sacred animal and that it is wicked for widows to remarry cause quite needless suffering."[44] He asserts that

You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs....You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the dimunition of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world.[45]
According to Paul Copan, Jewish laws in the bible show an evolution of moral standards towards protecting the vulnerable, imposing a death penalty on those pursuing forced slavery and identifying slaves as persons and not property.[46]
According to Bertrand Russell, "Clergymen almost necessarily fail in two ways as teachers of morals. They condemn acts which do no harm and they condone acts which do great harm."[47] He cites an example of a clergyman who was warned by a physician that his wife would die if she had another (her tenth) child, but impregnated her regardless which resulted in her death. "No one condemned him; he retained his benefice and married again. So long as clergymen continue to condone cruelty and condemn "innocent" pleasure, they can only do harm as guardians of the morals of the young."[48]
Russell further states that, "The sense of sin which dominates many children and young people and often lasts on into later life is a misery and a source of distortion that serves no useful purpose of any sort or kind."[49] Russel allows that religious sentiments have, historically, sometimes led to morally acceptable behavior, but asserts that, "in the present day, [1954] such good as might be done by imputing a theological origin to morals is inextricably bound up with such grave evils that the good becomes insignificant in comparison."[50]
Secular morality[edit]
Main article: Secular morality



All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.[51]
The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, 10 September 2012



 The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso in 2007
There are number of secular value frameworks, such as consequentialism, freethought, humanism, and utilitarianism. Yet, there have been opposing views about the ability of both religious and secular moral frameworks to provide useful guides to right and wrong actions.
Various non-religious commentators have supported the ability of secular value frameworks to provide useful guides. Bernard Williams argued that, "Either one's motives for following the moral word of God are moral motives, or they are not. If they are, then one is already equipped with moral motivations, and the introduction of God adds nothing extra. But if they are not moral motives, then they will be motives of such a kind that they cannot appropriately motivate morality at all ... we reach the conclusion that any appeal to God in this connection either adds to nothing at all, or it adds the wrong sort of thing."[52] Other observers criticize religious morals as incompatible with modern social norms. For example, popular atheist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that are considered today to be morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history.[citation needed] According to Paul Copan, the position of the Bible to slaves is a positive one for the slaves in that Jewish laws imposed a death penalty on those pursuing slavery and treated slaves as persons, not property.[46]
See also[edit]
Ethics in religion
Morality without religion
Criticism of Islam#Morality
Notes[edit]
a.^ Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth" (Zuckerman 2008, pp. 5–6).b.^ The authors also state that "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies,"[53] and "[t]he least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards."[54] They argue for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[23] an analysis published later in the same journal argues that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions in the research.[24]
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Esptein, Greg M. (2010). Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe. New York: HarperCollins. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-06-167011-4.
2.Jump up ^ Rachels, (ed) James; Rachels, (ed) Stuart (2011). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-078-03824-3.
3.Jump up ^ Childress, (ed) James F.; Macquarrie, (ed) John (1986). The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. p. 401. ISBN 0-664-20940-8.
4.Jump up ^ Rachels, (ed) James; Rachels, (ed) Stuart (2011). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-078-03824-3.
5.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
6.Jump up ^ Rachels, (ed) James; Rachels, (ed) Stuart (2011). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-078-03824-3.
7.Jump up ^ Bodhippriya Subhadra Siriwardena, 'The Buddhist perspective of lay morality', 1996
8.Jump up ^ Edgar Saint George, "Religion's Effects On Crime Rates"
9.Jump up ^ Peggy Morgan, "Buddhism." In Morgan, Peggy; Lawton, Clive A., eds. (2007). Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions (Second ed.). Columbia University Press. pp. 61, 88–89. ISBN 978-0-7486-2330-3.
10.Jump up ^ Miller, Barbara Stoler (2004). The Bhagavad Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War. New York: Random House. p. 3. ISBN 0-553-21365-2.
11.Jump up ^ Gaukroger, Stephen (2012). Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-19-960669-6.
12.Jump up ^ Gaukroger, Stephen (2012). Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-19-960669-6.
13.Jump up ^ Childress, (ed) James F.; Macquarrie, (ed) John (1986). The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. p. 400. ISBN 0-664-20940-8.
14.^ Jump up to: a b c Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. pp. np. ISBN 0-944-583-17-2.
15.^ Jump up to: a b Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion & Society 7: 1. Retrieved 8 October 2012. Archived copy
16.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion & Society 7: 7–8. Retrieved 8 October 2012. According to Paul, "Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolution America performs poorly."
17.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion & Society 7: 7–8. Retrieved 8 October 2012.
18.Jump up ^ Werner Menski, "Hinduism." In Morgan, Peggy; Lawton, Clive A., eds. (2007). Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions (Second ed.). Columbia University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-7486-2330-3.
19.Jump up ^ Barna Group (31 March 2008). "New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released". Barna Group. Retrieved 19 November 2011.
20.^ Jump up to: a b Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7.
21.Jump up ^ Ron Rhodes. "Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists". Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
22.Jump up ^ Baier, Colin J.; Wright, Bradley R. E. (February 2001). ""If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments": A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Religion on Crime" (PDF). 38. No. 1. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. p. 3. Retrieved 20 November 2011. Original in italics.
23.^ Jump up to: a b Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7.
24.^ Jump up to: a b Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith; Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
25.Jump up ^ Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS
26.Jump up ^ Zuckerman, Phil. Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment. New York: New York University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8147-9714-3. Zuckerman's work is based on his studies conducted during a 14-month period in Scandinavia in 2005–2006.
27.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 4, 5, 8, and 10.
28.Jump up ^ Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers by Science Daily
29.Jump up ^ Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg, Paul K. Piff, Katharine Clark, Dacher Keltner and Sarina R. Saturn My Brother’s Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals
30.Jump up ^ KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x
31.Jump up ^ SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3), 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x
32.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
33.Jump up ^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; doi:10.1177/0093854806293485
34.Jump up ^ For example: Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263–274.
Burkett, S.,& White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455–462.
Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
Cochran, J. K.,& Akers, R. L. (1989). Beyond Hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198–225.
Evans, T. D.,Cullen, F. T.,Burton, V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway, R. G.,Payne, G. L.,& Kethineni, S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43–70.
Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s": Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251–266.
Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952–958.
Johnson, B. R.,Larson, D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377–391.
Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323–340.
Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
35.Jump up ^ Baier, C. J.,& Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3–21.
36.Jump up ^ See, for instance, Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005). Sider quotes extensively from polling research by The Barna Group showing that moral behavior of evangelical Christians is unexemplary.
37.Jump up ^ "New Study Suggests Religion May Help Criminals Justify Their Crimes". www.slate.com. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
38.Jump up ^ Volkan Topalli, Timothy Brezina, Mindy Bernhardt (February 2013). "With God on my side: The paradoxical relationship between religious belief and criminality among hardcore street offenders". Theoretical Criminology.
39.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
40.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
41.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 10, 12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
42.Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 11–12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.
43.Jump up ^ David Hume, "The Natural History of Religion." In Hitchens, Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.
44.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. vii. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
45.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
46.^ Jump up to: a b Copan, Paul. "Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery? An Overview". Retrieved 5 July 2012.
47.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
48.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. pp. 68–69. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
49.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 166. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
50.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.
51.Jump up ^ Dalai Lama (10 September 2012). "Dalai Lama". Facebook. Facebook. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
52.Jump up ^ Williams, Bernard (1972). Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 64–65. ISBN 0-521-45729-7.
53.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 4, 5, 8.
54.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 11.
  


Categories: Morality
Religious ethics





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
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 6 June 2015, at 09:58.
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/Morality_and_religion









Secular morality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein also states that, "much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits."[1]:45 Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.
A variety of positions are apparent regarding the relationship between religion and morality. Some believe that religion is necessary as a guide to a moral life. This idea has been with us for nearly 2,000 years.[1]:5 There are various thoughts regarding how this idea has arisen. For example, Greg Epstein suggests that this idea is connected to a concerted effort by theists to question nonreligious ideas: "conservative authorities have, since ancient days, had a clever counterstrategy against religious skepticism—convincing people that atheism is evil, and then accusing their enemies of being atheists."[1]:7
Others eschew the idea that religion is required to provide a guide to right and wrong behavior, such as the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other".[2]:401 Some believe that religions provide poor guides to moral behavior. Various commentators, such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Christopher Hitchens are among those who have asserted this view.


Contents  [hide]
1 Secular moral frameworks 1.1 Consequentialism
1.2 Freethinking
1.3 Secular humanism
2 Positions on religion and morality 2.1 Morality requires religious tenets
2.2 Morality does not rely on religion
2.3 Religion is a poor moral guide
2.4 Evidential findings
2.5 Other views
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links

Secular moral frameworks[edit]
Consequentialism[edit]
Main article: Consequentialism
See also: Utilitarianism
"Consequentialists", as described by Peter Singer, "start not with moral rules, but with goals. They assess actions by the extent to which they further those goals."[3]:3 Singer also notes that utilitarianism is "the best-known, though not the only, consequentialist theory."[3]:3 Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris describes a utilitarian science of morality.
Freethinking[edit]
Main article: Freethinking
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas. Freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas.
Secular humanism[edit]
Main article: Secular humanism
Secular humanism focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. Though it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently evil or innately good, nor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.
Positions on religion and morality[edit]
See also: Ethics in religion and Secular ethics
The subject of secular morality has been discussed by prominent secular scholars as well as popular culture-based atheist and anti-religious writers. These include Paul Chamberlain's Can We Be Good Without God? (1996), Richard Holloway's Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics (1999), Robert Buckman's Can We Be Good Without God? (2002), Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil (2004), Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion (2006), Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great (2007), Greg Epstein's Good Without God: What A Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe (2010), and Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2011).
Morality requires religious tenets[edit]
According to Greg Epstein, "the idea that we can't be 'good without God' " has been with us for nearly 2,000 years.[1]:5 This idea is seen in various holy books, for example in Psalms 14 of the Christian Bible: "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good ... not even one."[4] And this idea is still present today. "Many today ... argue that religious beliefs are necessary to provide moral guidance and standards of virtuous conduct in an otherwise corrupt, materialistic, and degenerate world."[5]:115 For example, Christian writer and medievalist C. S. Lewis made the argument in his popular book Mere Christianity that if a supernatural, objective standard of right and wrong does not exist outside of the natural world, then right and wrong becomes mired in the is-ought problem. Thus, he wrote, preferences for one moral standard over another become as inherently indefensible and arbitrary as preferring a certain flavor of food over another or choosing to drive on a certain side of a road.[6]:3–28 In the same vein, Christian theologian Ron Rhodes has remarked that "it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good."[7] Peter Singer states that, "Traditionally, the more important link between religion and ethics was that religion was thought to provide a reason for doing what is right, the reason being that those who are virtuous will be rewarded by an eternity of bliss while the rest roast in hell."[3]:4
Proponents of theism argue that without a God or gods it is impossible to justify moral behavior on metaphysical grounds and thus to make a coherent case for abiding by moral standards. C. S. Lewis makes such an argument in Mere Christianity. Peter Robinson, a political author and commentator with Stanford's Hoover Institution, has commented that, if an inner moral conscience is just another adaptive or evolved feeling in the human mind like simple emotional urges, then no inherent reason exists to consider morality as over and above other urges.[8] According to Thomas Dixon, "Religions certainly do provide a framework within which people can learn the difference between right and wrong."[5]
Morality does not rely on religion[edit]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
—Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930
Various commentators have stated that morality does not require religion as a guide. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics states that, "it is not hard to imagine a society of people that has no religion but has a morality, as well as a legal system, just because it says that people cannot live together without rules against killing, etc., and that it is not desirable for these all to be legally enforced. There have also certainly been people who have had a morality but no religious beliefs."[2]:400 Bernard Williams, an English philosopher, stated that the secular "utilitarian outlook"—a popular ethical position wherein the morally right action is defined as that action which effects the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people—is "non-transcendental, and makes no appeal outside human life, in particular not to religious considerations."[9]:83 Williams also argued that, "Either one's motives for following the moral word of God are moral motives, or they are not. If they are, then one is already equipped with moral motivations, and the introduction of God adds nothing extra. But if they are not moral motives, then they will be motives of such a kind that they cannot appropriately motivate morality at all ... we reach the conclusion that any appeal to God in this connection either adds to nothing at all, or it adds the wrong sort of thing."[9]:64–65
Socrates' "Euthyphro dilemma" is often considered one of the earliest refutations of the idea that morality requires religion. This line of reasoning is described by Peter Singer:

"Some theists say that ethics cannot do without religion because the very meaning of 'good' is nothing other than 'what God approves'. Plato refuted a similar claim more than two thousand years ago by arguing that if the gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be the gods' approval that makes them good. The alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping our neighbors, torture would have been good and helping our neighbors bad. Some modern theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this type of dilemma by maintaining that God is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but these theists are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good? That God is approved of by God?"[3]:3–4
Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, dismisses the question of whether God is needed to be good "because that question does not need to be answered—it needs to be rejected outright," adding, "To suggest that one can't be good without belief in God is not just an opinion ... it is a prejudice. It may even be discrimination."[1]:ix This is in line with the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[2]:401 Others share this view. Singer states that morality "is not something intelligible only in the context of religion".[3][a] Atheistic philosopher Julian Baggini stated that "there is nothing to stop atheists believing in morality, a meaning for life, or human goodness. Atheism is only intrinsically negative when it comes to belief about God. It is as capable of a positive view of other aspects of life as any other belief."[10]:3 He also states that "Morality is more than possible without God, it is entirely independent of him. That means atheists are not only more than capable of leading moral lives, they may even be able to lead more moral lives than religious believers who confuse divine law and punishment with right and wrong.[10]:37
Popular atheist author and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens remarked on the program Uncommon Knowledge:

"I think our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us. Religion gets its morality from humans. We know that we can't get along if we permit perjury, theft, murder, rape, all societies at all times, well before the advent of monarchies and certainly, have forbidden it... Socrates called his daemon, it was an inner voice that stopped him when he was trying to take advantage of someone... Why don't we just assume that we do have some internal compass?"[8]



 Daniel Dennett says it is a "pernicious" myth that religion or God are needed for people to fulfill their desires to be good. However, he offers that secular and humanist groups are still learning how to organize effectively.[11]
Philosopher Daniel Dennett says that secular organizations need to learn more 'marketing' lessons from religion—and from effective secular organizations like the TED conferences. This is partly because Dennett says that the idea that people need God to be morally good is an extremely harmful, yet popular myth. He believes it is a falsehood that persists because churches are currently much better at organizing people to do morally good work.[11] In Dennett's words:

"What is particularly pernicious about it [the myth] is that it exploits a wonderful human trait; people want to be good. They want to lead good lives... So then along come religions that say 'Well you can't be good without God' to convince people that they have to do this. That may be the main motivation for people to take religions seriously—to try to take religions seriously, to try and establish an allegiance to the church—because they want to lead good lives."[11]
Religion is a poor moral guide[edit]
Popular atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that are considered today to be morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history. Dawkins insists that, since Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible have changed over the span of history so that what was formerly seen as permissible is now seen as impermissible, it is intellectually dishonest for them to believe theism provides an absolute moral foundation apart from secular intuition. In addition, he argued that since Christians and other religious groups do not acknowledge the binding authority of all parts of their holy texts (e.g., The books of Exodus and Leviticus state that those who work on the Sabbath[12] and those caught performing acts of homosexuality,[13] respectively, were to be put to death.), they are already capable of distinguishing "right" from "wrong."[14]:281
The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted,"[1]:63 suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. Greg M. Epstein notes a similar theme in reverse. Famous apologies by Christians who have "sinned" (such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Swaggart) "must embolden some who take enormous risks for the thrill of a little immoral behavior: their Lord will forgive them, if they only ask nicely enough when—or if—they are eventually caught. If you're going to do something naughty, you're going to do it, and all the theology in the world isn't going to stop you."[1]:115–116 Some survey and sociological literature suggests that theists do no better than their secular counterparts in the percentage adhering to widely held moral standards (e.g., lying, theft and sexual infidelity).[e]
Evidential findings[edit]
Cases can also be seen in nature of animals exhibiting behavior we might classify as "moral" without religious directives to guide them. These include "detailed studies of the complex systems of altruism and cooperation that operate among social insects" and "the posting of altruistic sentinels by some species of bird and mammal, who risk their own lives to warn the rest of the group of imminent danger."[5]:117
Greg Epstein states that "sociologists have recently begun to pay more attention to the fact that some of the world's most secular countries, such as those in Scandinavia, are among the least violent, best educated, and most likely to care for the poor".[15] He adds that, "scientists are beginning to document, though religion may have benefits for the brain, so may secularism and Humanism."[15]
On April 26, 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects' pro-social sentiments were published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as lending their possessions and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train. Religious people also had lower scores when it came to seeing how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in other ways, such as in giving money or food to a homeless person and to non-believers.[16][17]
A number of studies have been conducted on the empirics of morality in various countries, and the overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear.[b] A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."[18] Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, Society without God, notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[19][c] Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.[20][d] In a response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[21] His conclusion is that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it".
Other views[edit]


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)
Some non-religious nihilistic and existentialist thinkers have affirmed the prominent theistic position that the existence of the personal God of theism is linked to the existence of an objective moral standard, asserting that questions of right and wrong inherently have no meaning and, thus, any notions of morality are nothing but an anthropogenic fantasy. Agnostic author and Absurdist philosopher Albert Camus discussed the issue of what he saw as the universe's indifference towards humankind and the meaninglessness of life in his prominent novel The Stranger, in which the protagonist accepts death via execution without sadness or feelings of injustice. In his philosophical work, The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus argues that human beings must choose to live defiantly in spite of their longing for purpose or direction and the apparent lack of evidence for God or moral imperatives.[citation needed] The atheistic existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre proposed that the individual must create his own essence and therefore must freely and independently create his own subjective moral standards by which to live.
See also[edit]
Morality and religion
Secular ethics
Science of morality
Notes[edit]
a.^ Singer uses the word "ethics", but states in the same work that he uses the words ethics and morals "interchangeably" (p. 1).b.^ Some studies appear to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior[22][23]—for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[24] Modern research in criminology also suggests an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[25] with some studies establishing this connection.[26] A meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior".[27]c.^ Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth" (Zuckerman 2008, pp. 5–6).d.^ The authors also state that "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies,"[28] and "[t]he least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards."[29] They argue for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[30] an analysis published later in the same journal argues that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions in the research.[31]e.^ See, for instance, Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005). Sider quotes extensively from polling research by The Barna Group showing that the moral behavior of evangelical Christians is anything but exemplary.
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Epstein, Greg M. (2010). Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-167011-4.
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Childress, James F.; Macquarrie, John, eds. (1986). The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. ISBN 0-664-20940-8.
3.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Singer, Peter (2010). Practical Ethics (Second ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43971-8.
4.Jump up ^ ESVBible.org. "Psalm 14 - ESVBible.org". Crossway. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
5.^ Jump up to: a b c Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7.
6.Jump up ^ Lewis, C.S. (2001). Mere Christianity. HarperCollins.
7.Jump up ^ Ron Rhodes. "Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists". Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
8.^ Jump up to: a b "Hitchens—The Morals of an Atheist". Uncommon Knowledge. August 23, 2007. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Williams, Bernard (1972). Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-45729-7.
10.^ Jump up to: a b Baggini, Julian (2003). Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280424-2.
11.^ Jump up to: a b c Dennett, Daniel (December 12, 2011). "The Scientific Study of Religion". Point of Inquiry. Discussion of morality starts especially at 39min
12.Jump up ^ Biblos.com (2004–2011). "Exodus 31:15". Biblos.com. Retrieved 6 September 2012. Exodus 35:2 is similarly worded.
13.Jump up ^ Biblos.com (2004–2011). "Leviticus 20:13". Biblos.com. Retrieved 6 September 2012.
14.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Books. ISBN 978-0-618-68000-9.
15.^ Jump up to: a b Zuckerman, Phil (2008). Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. New York: New York University Press.
16.Jump up ^ Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers by Science Daily
17.Jump up ^ Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg, Paul K. Piff, Katharine Clark, Dacher Keltner and Sarina R. Saturn My Brother's Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals
18.Jump up ^ Baier, Colin J.; Wright, Bradley R. E. (February 2001). ""If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments": A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Religion on Crime" (PDF). 38. No. 1. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. p. 3. Retrieved 20 November 2011. Original in italics.
19.Jump up ^ Zuckerman, Phil. Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment. New York: New York University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8147-9714-3. Zuckerman's work is based on his studies conducted during a 14-month period in Scandinavia in 2005–2006.
20.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 4, 5, 8, and 10.
21.Jump up ^ Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS
22.Jump up ^ KERLEY, KENT R.; MATTHEWS; BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005). "Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4): 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x.
23.Jump up ^ SAROGLOU, VASSILIS; PICHON; DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005). "Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3): 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x.
24.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
25.Jump up ^ As is stated in: Chu, Doris C. (2007). "Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use". Criminal Justice and Behavior 34: 661. doi:10.1177/0093854806293485.
26.Jump up ^ For example: Albrecht, S. I.; Chadwick, B. A.; Alcorn, D. S. (1977). "Religiosity and deviance: Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16: 263–274. doi:10.2307/1385697.
Burkett, S.; White, M. (1974). "Hellfire and delinquency:Another look". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13: 455–462. doi:10.2307/1384608.
Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
Cochran, J. K.; Akers, R. L. (1989). "Beyond Hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26: 198–225. doi:10.1177/0022427889026003002.
Evans, T. D.; Cullen, F. T.; Burton, V. S.; Jr; Dunaway, R. G.; Payne, G. L.; Kethineni, S. R. (1996). "Religion, social bonds, and delinquency". Deviant Behavior 17: 43–70. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
Grasmick, H. G.; Bursik, R. J.; Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayer's inclinations to cheat". The Sociological Quarterly 32: 251–266. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces 55: 952–958. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
Johnson, B. R.; Larson, D. B.; DeLi, S.; Jang, S. J. (2000). "Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth". Justice Quarterly 17: 377–391. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371.
Johnson, R. E.; Marcos, A. C.; Bahr, S. J. (1987). "The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use". Criminology 25: 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
Powell, K. (1997). "Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths". Family and Community Health 20: 38–47. doi:10.1097/00003727-199707000-00006.
27.Jump up ^ Baier, C. J.; Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38: 3–21. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001001.
28.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 4, 5, 8.
29.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 11.
30.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7.
31.Jump up ^ Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith; Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
External links[edit]
Morality without religion, by Marc Hauser
Can we be good without God 1996, Paul Chamberlain ISBN 0-8308-1686-0
Video: Marc Hauser, Pt 3 Is there morality without religion?
  


Categories: Morality
Irreligion
Secularism







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
Español
فارسی
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 January 2015, at 09:24.
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/Secular_morality










Secular morality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein also states that, "much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits."[1]:45 Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.
A variety of positions are apparent regarding the relationship between religion and morality. Some believe that religion is necessary as a guide to a moral life. This idea has been with us for nearly 2,000 years.[1]:5 There are various thoughts regarding how this idea has arisen. For example, Greg Epstein suggests that this idea is connected to a concerted effort by theists to question nonreligious ideas: "conservative authorities have, since ancient days, had a clever counterstrategy against religious skepticism—convincing people that atheism is evil, and then accusing their enemies of being atheists."[1]:7
Others eschew the idea that religion is required to provide a guide to right and wrong behavior, such as the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other".[2]:401 Some believe that religions provide poor guides to moral behavior. Various commentators, such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Christopher Hitchens are among those who have asserted this view.


Contents  [hide]
1 Secular moral frameworks 1.1 Consequentialism
1.2 Freethinking
1.3 Secular humanism
2 Positions on religion and morality 2.1 Morality requires religious tenets
2.2 Morality does not rely on religion
2.3 Religion is a poor moral guide
2.4 Evidential findings
2.5 Other views
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links

Secular moral frameworks[edit]
Consequentialism[edit]
Main article: Consequentialism
See also: Utilitarianism
"Consequentialists", as described by Peter Singer, "start not with moral rules, but with goals. They assess actions by the extent to which they further those goals."[3]:3 Singer also notes that utilitarianism is "the best-known, though not the only, consequentialist theory."[3]:3 Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris describes a utilitarian science of morality.
Freethinking[edit]
Main article: Freethinking
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas. Freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas.
Secular humanism[edit]
Main article: Secular humanism
Secular humanism focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. Though it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently evil or innately good, nor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.
Positions on religion and morality[edit]
See also: Ethics in religion and Secular ethics
The subject of secular morality has been discussed by prominent secular scholars as well as popular culture-based atheist and anti-religious writers. These include Paul Chamberlain's Can We Be Good Without God? (1996), Richard Holloway's Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics (1999), Robert Buckman's Can We Be Good Without God? (2002), Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil (2004), Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion (2006), Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great (2007), Greg Epstein's Good Without God: What A Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe (2010), and Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2011).
Morality requires religious tenets[edit]
According to Greg Epstein, "the idea that we can't be 'good without God' " has been with us for nearly 2,000 years.[1]:5 This idea is seen in various holy books, for example in Psalms 14 of the Christian Bible: "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good ... not even one."[4] And this idea is still present today. "Many today ... argue that religious beliefs are necessary to provide moral guidance and standards of virtuous conduct in an otherwise corrupt, materialistic, and degenerate world."[5]:115 For example, Christian writer and medievalist C. S. Lewis made the argument in his popular book Mere Christianity that if a supernatural, objective standard of right and wrong does not exist outside of the natural world, then right and wrong becomes mired in the is-ought problem. Thus, he wrote, preferences for one moral standard over another become as inherently indefensible and arbitrary as preferring a certain flavor of food over another or choosing to drive on a certain side of a road.[6]:3–28 In the same vein, Christian theologian Ron Rhodes has remarked that "it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good."[7] Peter Singer states that, "Traditionally, the more important link between religion and ethics was that religion was thought to provide a reason for doing what is right, the reason being that those who are virtuous will be rewarded by an eternity of bliss while the rest roast in hell."[3]:4
Proponents of theism argue that without a God or gods it is impossible to justify moral behavior on metaphysical grounds and thus to make a coherent case for abiding by moral standards. C. S. Lewis makes such an argument in Mere Christianity. Peter Robinson, a political author and commentator with Stanford's Hoover Institution, has commented that, if an inner moral conscience is just another adaptive or evolved feeling in the human mind like simple emotional urges, then no inherent reason exists to consider morality as over and above other urges.[8] According to Thomas Dixon, "Religions certainly do provide a framework within which people can learn the difference between right and wrong."[5]
Morality does not rely on religion[edit]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
—Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930
Various commentators have stated that morality does not require religion as a guide. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics states that, "it is not hard to imagine a society of people that has no religion but has a morality, as well as a legal system, just because it says that people cannot live together without rules against killing, etc., and that it is not desirable for these all to be legally enforced. There have also certainly been people who have had a morality but no religious beliefs."[2]:400 Bernard Williams, an English philosopher, stated that the secular "utilitarian outlook"—a popular ethical position wherein the morally right action is defined as that action which effects the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people—is "non-transcendental, and makes no appeal outside human life, in particular not to religious considerations."[9]:83 Williams also argued that, "Either one's motives for following the moral word of God are moral motives, or they are not. If they are, then one is already equipped with moral motivations, and the introduction of God adds nothing extra. But if they are not moral motives, then they will be motives of such a kind that they cannot appropriately motivate morality at all ... we reach the conclusion that any appeal to God in this connection either adds to nothing at all, or it adds the wrong sort of thing."[9]:64–65
Socrates' "Euthyphro dilemma" is often considered one of the earliest refutations of the idea that morality requires religion. This line of reasoning is described by Peter Singer:

"Some theists say that ethics cannot do without religion because the very meaning of 'good' is nothing other than 'what God approves'. Plato refuted a similar claim more than two thousand years ago by arguing that if the gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be the gods' approval that makes them good. The alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping our neighbors, torture would have been good and helping our neighbors bad. Some modern theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this type of dilemma by maintaining that God is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but these theists are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good? That God is approved of by God?"[3]:3–4
Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, dismisses the question of whether God is needed to be good "because that question does not need to be answered—it needs to be rejected outright," adding, "To suggest that one can't be good without belief in God is not just an opinion ... it is a prejudice. It may even be discrimination."[1]:ix This is in line with the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[2]:401 Others share this view. Singer states that morality "is not something intelligible only in the context of religion".[3][a] Atheistic philosopher Julian Baggini stated that "there is nothing to stop atheists believing in morality, a meaning for life, or human goodness. Atheism is only intrinsically negative when it comes to belief about God. It is as capable of a positive view of other aspects of life as any other belief."[10]:3 He also states that "Morality is more than possible without God, it is entirely independent of him. That means atheists are not only more than capable of leading moral lives, they may even be able to lead more moral lives than religious believers who confuse divine law and punishment with right and wrong.[10]:37
Popular atheist author and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens remarked on the program Uncommon Knowledge:

"I think our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us. Religion gets its morality from humans. We know that we can't get along if we permit perjury, theft, murder, rape, all societies at all times, well before the advent of monarchies and certainly, have forbidden it... Socrates called his daemon, it was an inner voice that stopped him when he was trying to take advantage of someone... Why don't we just assume that we do have some internal compass?"[8]



 Daniel Dennett says it is a "pernicious" myth that religion or God are needed for people to fulfill their desires to be good. However, he offers that secular and humanist groups are still learning how to organize effectively.[11]
Philosopher Daniel Dennett says that secular organizations need to learn more 'marketing' lessons from religion—and from effective secular organizations like the TED conferences. This is partly because Dennett says that the idea that people need God to be morally good is an extremely harmful, yet popular myth. He believes it is a falsehood that persists because churches are currently much better at organizing people to do morally good work.[11] In Dennett's words:

"What is particularly pernicious about it [the myth] is that it exploits a wonderful human trait; people want to be good. They want to lead good lives... So then along come religions that say 'Well you can't be good without God' to convince people that they have to do this. That may be the main motivation for people to take religions seriously—to try to take religions seriously, to try and establish an allegiance to the church—because they want to lead good lives."[11]
Religion is a poor moral guide[edit]
Popular atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that are considered today to be morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history. Dawkins insists that, since Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible have changed over the span of history so that what was formerly seen as permissible is now seen as impermissible, it is intellectually dishonest for them to believe theism provides an absolute moral foundation apart from secular intuition. In addition, he argued that since Christians and other religious groups do not acknowledge the binding authority of all parts of their holy texts (e.g., The books of Exodus and Leviticus state that those who work on the Sabbath[12] and those caught performing acts of homosexuality,[13] respectively, were to be put to death.), they are already capable of distinguishing "right" from "wrong."[14]:281
The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted,"[1]:63 suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. Greg M. Epstein notes a similar theme in reverse. Famous apologies by Christians who have "sinned" (such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Swaggart) "must embolden some who take enormous risks for the thrill of a little immoral behavior: their Lord will forgive them, if they only ask nicely enough when—or if—they are eventually caught. If you're going to do something naughty, you're going to do it, and all the theology in the world isn't going to stop you."[1]:115–116 Some survey and sociological literature suggests that theists do no better than their secular counterparts in the percentage adhering to widely held moral standards (e.g., lying, theft and sexual infidelity).[e]
Evidential findings[edit]
Cases can also be seen in nature of animals exhibiting behavior we might classify as "moral" without religious directives to guide them. These include "detailed studies of the complex systems of altruism and cooperation that operate among social insects" and "the posting of altruistic sentinels by some species of bird and mammal, who risk their own lives to warn the rest of the group of imminent danger."[5]:117
Greg Epstein states that "sociologists have recently begun to pay more attention to the fact that some of the world's most secular countries, such as those in Scandinavia, are among the least violent, best educated, and most likely to care for the poor".[15] He adds that, "scientists are beginning to document, though religion may have benefits for the brain, so may secularism and Humanism."[15]
On April 26, 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects' pro-social sentiments were published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as lending their possessions and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train. Religious people also had lower scores when it came to seeing how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in other ways, such as in giving money or food to a homeless person and to non-believers.[16][17]
A number of studies have been conducted on the empirics of morality in various countries, and the overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear.[b] A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."[18] Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, Society without God, notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[19][c] Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.[20][d] In a response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[21] His conclusion is that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it".
Other views[edit]


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)
Some non-religious nihilistic and existentialist thinkers have affirmed the prominent theistic position that the existence of the personal God of theism is linked to the existence of an objective moral standard, asserting that questions of right and wrong inherently have no meaning and, thus, any notions of morality are nothing but an anthropogenic fantasy. Agnostic author and Absurdist philosopher Albert Camus discussed the issue of what he saw as the universe's indifference towards humankind and the meaninglessness of life in his prominent novel The Stranger, in which the protagonist accepts death via execution without sadness or feelings of injustice. In his philosophical work, The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus argues that human beings must choose to live defiantly in spite of their longing for purpose or direction and the apparent lack of evidence for God or moral imperatives.[citation needed] The atheistic existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre proposed that the individual must create his own essence and therefore must freely and independently create his own subjective moral standards by which to live.
See also[edit]
Morality and religion
Secular ethics
Science of morality
Notes[edit]
a.^ Singer uses the word "ethics", but states in the same work that he uses the words ethics and morals "interchangeably" (p. 1).b.^ Some studies appear to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior[22][23]—for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[24] Modern research in criminology also suggests an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[25] with some studies establishing this connection.[26] A meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior".[27]c.^ Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth" (Zuckerman 2008, pp. 5–6).d.^ The authors also state that "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies,"[28] and "[t]he least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards."[29] They argue for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[30] an analysis published later in the same journal argues that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions in the research.[31]e.^ See, for instance, Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005). Sider quotes extensively from polling research by The Barna Group showing that the moral behavior of evangelical Christians is anything but exemplary.
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Epstein, Greg M. (2010). Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-167011-4.
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Childress, James F.; Macquarrie, John, eds. (1986). The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. ISBN 0-664-20940-8.
3.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Singer, Peter (2010). Practical Ethics (Second ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43971-8.
4.Jump up ^ ESVBible.org. "Psalm 14 - ESVBible.org". Crossway. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
5.^ Jump up to: a b c Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7.
6.Jump up ^ Lewis, C.S. (2001). Mere Christianity. HarperCollins.
7.Jump up ^ Ron Rhodes. "Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists". Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
8.^ Jump up to: a b "Hitchens—The Morals of an Atheist". Uncommon Knowledge. August 23, 2007. Retrieved January 4, 2010.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Williams, Bernard (1972). Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-45729-7.
10.^ Jump up to: a b Baggini, Julian (2003). Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280424-2.
11.^ Jump up to: a b c Dennett, Daniel (December 12, 2011). "The Scientific Study of Religion". Point of Inquiry. Discussion of morality starts especially at 39min
12.Jump up ^ Biblos.com (2004–2011). "Exodus 31:15". Biblos.com. Retrieved 6 September 2012. Exodus 35:2 is similarly worded.
13.Jump up ^ Biblos.com (2004–2011). "Leviticus 20:13". Biblos.com. Retrieved 6 September 2012.
14.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Books. ISBN 978-0-618-68000-9.
15.^ Jump up to: a b Zuckerman, Phil (2008). Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. New York: New York University Press.
16.Jump up ^ Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers by Science Daily
17.Jump up ^ Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg, Paul K. Piff, Katharine Clark, Dacher Keltner and Sarina R. Saturn My Brother's Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals
18.Jump up ^ Baier, Colin J.; Wright, Bradley R. E. (February 2001). ""If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments": A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Religion on Crime" (PDF). 38. No. 1. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. p. 3. Retrieved 20 November 2011. Original in italics.
19.Jump up ^ Zuckerman, Phil. Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment. New York: New York University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8147-9714-3. Zuckerman's work is based on his studies conducted during a 14-month period in Scandinavia in 2005–2006.
20.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 4, 5, 8, and 10.
21.Jump up ^ Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS
22.Jump up ^ KERLEY, KENT R.; MATTHEWS; BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005). "Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4): 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x.
23.Jump up ^ SAROGLOU, VASSILIS; PICHON; DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005). "Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3): 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x.
24.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
25.Jump up ^ As is stated in: Chu, Doris C. (2007). "Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use". Criminal Justice and Behavior 34: 661. doi:10.1177/0093854806293485.
26.Jump up ^ For example: Albrecht, S. I.; Chadwick, B. A.; Alcorn, D. S. (1977). "Religiosity and deviance: Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16: 263–274. doi:10.2307/1385697.
Burkett, S.; White, M. (1974). "Hellfire and delinquency:Another look". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13: 455–462. doi:10.2307/1384608.
Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
Cochran, J. K.; Akers, R. L. (1989). "Beyond Hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26: 198–225. doi:10.1177/0022427889026003002.
Evans, T. D.; Cullen, F. T.; Burton, V. S.; Jr; Dunaway, R. G.; Payne, G. L.; Kethineni, S. R. (1996). "Religion, social bonds, and delinquency". Deviant Behavior 17: 43–70. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
Grasmick, H. G.; Bursik, R. J.; Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayer's inclinations to cheat". The Sociological Quarterly 32: 251–266. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces 55: 952–958. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
Johnson, B. R.; Larson, D. B.; DeLi, S.; Jang, S. J. (2000). "Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth". Justice Quarterly 17: 377–391. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371.
Johnson, R. E.; Marcos, A. C.; Bahr, S. J. (1987). "The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use". Criminology 25: 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
Powell, K. (1997). "Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths". Family and Community Health 20: 38–47. doi:10.1097/00003727-199707000-00006.
27.Jump up ^ Baier, C. J.; Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38: 3–21. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001001.
28.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 4, 5, 8.
29.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7: 11.
30.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7.
31.Jump up ^ Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith; Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
External links[edit]
Morality without religion, by Marc Hauser
Can we be good without God 1996, Paul Chamberlain ISBN 0-8308-1686-0
Video: Marc Hauser, Pt 3 Is there morality without religion?
  


Categories: Morality
Irreligion
Secularism







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
Español
فارسی
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 January 2015, at 09:24.
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/Secular_morality









Secular ethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)
Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics). Secular ethics comprises any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural, such as humanism, secularism and freethinking.
The majority of secular moral systems accept either the normativity of social contracts, some form of attribution of intrinsic moral value, intuition-based deontology, or cultural moral relativism. A smaller minority believe scientific reasoning can reveal moral truth. This is known as science of morality. Approaches like utilitarianism, subjective moral relativism, and ethical egoism are less common, but still maintain a significant following among secular ethicists.[citation needed] Little attention is paid to the positions of moral skepticism and moral nihilism; however, many religious and some secular ethicists believe that secular morality cannot exist without a god or gods to provide ontological grounding, or is at least impossible to apprehend apart from authoritative revelation.
Secular ethics frameworks do not necessarily contradict all theological values. For example, the Golden Rule or a commitment to non-violence, could be supported by those within religious and secular frameworks. Secular ethics systems can also vary within the societal and cultural norms of a specific time period.


Contents  [hide]
1 Tenets of secular ethics 1.1 Humanist ethics
1.2 Secular ethics and religion
2 Examples of secular ethical codes 2.1 Humanist Manifestos
2.2 Girl Scout law
2.3 United States Naval Academy honor concept
2.4 Minnesota Principles
2.5 Rotary Four-Way Test
2.6 Military codes 2.6.1 West Point Honor Code

3 Nature and ethics
4 Key philosophers and philosophical texts 4.1 Holyoake
4.2 Nietzsche
4.3 Kant
4.4 Utilitarianism
4.5 Objectivism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography

Tenets of secular ethics[edit]
Despite the width and diversity of their philosophical views, secular ethicists generally share one or more principles:
Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
This may lead to a behavior preferable to that propagated or condoned based on religious texts. Alternatively, this may lead to the advocacy of a system of moral principles that a broad group of people, both religious and non-religious, can agree upon.
Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.
Societies should, if at all possible, advance from a less ethical and just form to a more ethical and just form.
Many of these tenets are applied in the science of morality, the use of the scientific method to answer moral questions. Various thinkers have framed morality as questions of empirical truth to be explored in a scientific context. The science is related to ethical naturalism, a type of ethical realism.
In How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living, Rushworth Kidder identifies four general characteristics of an ethical code:
1. It is brief2. It is usually not explanatory3. Can be expressed in a number of forms (e.g. positive or negative, single words or a list of sentences)4. Centers on moral values[1]
Humanist ethics[edit]
Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, and that knowledge of right and wrong is based on our best understanding of our individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental or arbitrarily local source, therefore rejecting faith completely as a basis for action. The humanist ethics goal is a search for viable individual, social and political principles of conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility, ultimately eliminating human suffering.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world-wide umbrella organization for those adhering to the Humanist life stance.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.[2]
Humanism is known to adopt principles of the Golden Rule, of which the best-known English formulation is found in the words of Jesus of Nazareth, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Also consider the quote by Oscar Wilde: "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." This quotation emphasizes the respect for others' identity and ideals while downplaying the effects one has on others.
Secular ethics and religion[edit]
See also: Morality and Religion
There are those who state that religion is not necessary for moral behavior at all.[3] The Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things."[4]
Those who are unhappy with the negative orientation of traditional religious ethics believe that prohibitions can only set the absolute limits of what a society is willing to tolerate from people at their worst, not guide them towards achieving their best.[citation needed] In other words, someone who follows all these prohibitions has just barely avoided being a criminal, not acted as a positive influence on the world. They conclude that rational ethics can lead to a fully expressed ethical life, while religious prohibitions are insufficient.[citation needed]
That does not mean secular ethics and religion are mutually exclusive. In fact, many principles, such as the Golden Rule, are present in both systems, and some religious people, as well as some Deists, prefer to adopt a rational approach to ethics.[citation needed]
Examples of secular ethical codes[edit]
Humanist Manifestos[edit]
The Humanist Manifestos are three manifestos, the first published in 1933, that outline the philosophical views and stances of humanists. Integral to the manifestos is a lack of supernatural guidance.
Girl Scout law[edit]
The Girl Scout law is as follows:
I will do my best to be honest and fair,friendly and helpful,considerate and caring,courageous and strong, andresponsible for what I say and do,and to respect myself and others,respect authority,use resources wisely,make the world a better place, andbe a sister to every Girl Scout.[5]
United States Naval Academy honor concept[edit]
"Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right.
They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie.They embrace fairness in all actions. They ensure that work submitted as their own is their own, and that assistance received from any source is authorized and properly documented. They do not cheat.They respect the property of others and ensure that others are able to benefit from the use of their own property. They do not steal."[6]
Minnesota Principles[edit]
The Minnesota Principles were proposed "by the Minnesota Center for Corporate Responsibility in 1992 as a guide to international business activities":
1.Business activities must be characterized by fairness. We understand fairness to include equitable treatment and equality of opportunity for all participants in the marketplace.
2.Business activities must be characterized by honesty. We understand honesty to include candor, truthfulness and promise-keeping.
3.Business activities must be characterized by respect for human dignity. We understand this to mean that business activities should show a special concern for the less powerful and the disadvantaged.
4.Business activities must be characterized by respect for the environment. We understand this to mean that business activities should promote sustainable development and prevent environmental degradation and waste of resources.[7]
Rotary Four-Way Test[edit]
The Four-Way Test test is the "linchpin of Rotary International's ethical practice." It acts as a test of thoughts as well as actions. It asks, "Of the things we think, say, or do":
1.Is it the truth?
2.Is it fair to all concerned?
3.Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
4.Will it be beneficial to all concerned?[1]
Military codes[edit]
See also: Ranger Creed
As the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of a government religion, US military codes of conduct typically contain no religious overtones.
West Point Honor Code[edit]
The West Point honor code states that "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." The non-toleration clause is key in differentiating it from numerous other codes.[8]
Nature and ethics[edit]
See also: Social effect of evolutionary theory and evolutionary ethics
Whether or not the relationships between animals found in nature and between people in early human evolution can provide a basis for human morality is a persistently unresolved question. Thomas Henry Huxley wrote in Evolution and Ethics in 1893 that people make a grave error in trying to create moral ideas from the behavior of animals in nature. He remarked:

The practice of that which is ethically best — what we call goodness or virtue — involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows... It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence... Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process.[9]
Famous biologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould has stated that "answers will not be read passively from nature" and "[t]he factual state of the world does not teach us how we, with our powers for good and evil, should alter or preserve it in the most ethical manner". Thus, he concluded that ideas of morality should come from a form of higher mental reason, with nature viewed as an independent phenomenon.[9]
Evolutionary ethics is not the only way to involve nature with ethics. For example, there are ethically realist theories like ethical naturalism. Related to ethical naturalism is also the idea that ethics are best explored, not just using the lens of philosophy, but science as well (a science of morality).
Key philosophers and philosophical texts[edit]
Holyoake[edit]



 Holyoake, agnostic
George Jacob Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism thus:
"Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good."[10]
Holyoake held that secularism should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.

Nietzsche[edit]



 Nietzsche, atheist
Friedrich Nietzsche based his work on ethics on the rejection of Christianity and authority in general, or on moral nihilism. Nietzsche's many works spoke of a Master-Slave Morality, The Will to Power, or something stronger that overcomes the weaker and Darwinistic adaptation and will to live. Nietzsche expressed his moral philosophy throughout his collection of works; the most important of these to secular ethics being The Gay Science (in which the famous God is dead phrase was first used), Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil and On The Genealogy of Morals.



Kant[edit]



 Kant, theist (disputably Christian)
Main article: Kantian ethics
On ethics, Kant wrote works that both described the nature of universal principles and also sought to demonstrate the procedure of their application. Kant maintained that only a "good will" is morally praiseworthy, so that doing what appears to be ethical for the wrong reasons is not a morally good act. Kant's emphasis on one's intent or reasons for acting is usually contrasted with the utilitarian tenet that the goodness of an action is to be judged solely by its results. Utilitarianism is a hypothetical imperative, if one wants _____, they must do ______. Contrast this with the Kantian ethic of the categorical imperative, where the moral act is done for its own sake, and is framed: One must do ______ or alternatively, one must not do ______.
For instance, under Kantian ethics, if a person were to give money to charity because failure to do so would result in some sort of punishment from a god or Supreme Being, then the charitable donation would not be a morally good act. A dutiful action must be performed solely out of a sense of duty; any other motivation profanes the act and strips it of its moral quality.

Utilitarianism[edit]



John Stuart Mill, developer of Jeremy Bentham's utility-based theory
Main article: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. It is a form of consequentialism. This good to be maximized is usually happiness, pleasure, or preference satisfaction. Though some utilitarian theories might seek to maximize other consequences, these consequences generally have something to do with the welfare of people (or of people and nonhuman animals). For this reason, utilitarianism is often associated with the term welfarist consequentialism.
In utilitarianism it is the "end result" which is fundamental (as opposed to Kantian ethics discussed above). Thus using the same scenario as above, it would be irrelevant whether the person giving money to charity was doing so out of personal or religious conviction, the mere fact that the charitable donation is being made is sufficient for it to be classified as morally good.

Objectivism[edit]



 The mythological figure of Atlas is an icon of Objectivism.
Main article: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
According to Ayn Rand in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,

A moral code is a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code’s standard of value. The standard is the end, to which man’s actions are the means. A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into the appropriate concretes—he must choose the particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly.[11]
Thus, she stated in her book For the New Intellectual that her morality is contained in a single axiom. She described it as the fact that "existence exists— and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these." Objectivist ethics holds that the only true moral standard is that a person should act to do what is in their rational self-interest in benefit of themselves. No other standard of judging behavior should exist otherwise. The twin related principles of reason and of free will are key in allowing an individual to determine their self-interest.[11]
Ayn Rand has also coined the phrase "I am, therefore I'll think"[12] as a summary of the process. In the novel Atlas Shrugged, the character John Galt said that he based his actions on his belief that "I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

See also[edit]
Anthropocentrism
Anarchism
Brights movement
Cognitivism with subcategories Ethical naturalism & Ethical non-naturalism, and opponent Non-cognitivism
Environmentalism
Ethical subjectivism
Hedonism
Liberalism
Marxism
Moral realism
Moral relativism
Moral skepticism
Moral Zeitgeist
Normative ethics
Objectivism
Peter Singer
Secular humanism
Secular religion
Socialism
Utilitarian bioethics
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Kidder 2003. 82
2.Jump up ^ Humanism's Unfinished Agenda
3.Jump up ^ Is Atheism Consistent With Morality?, paper (2001) by Mark I. Vuletic
4.Jump up ^ Interview with the Dalai Lama, The Progressive (January 2006), scroll to Question: Apart from Buddhism, what are your sources of inspiration? The Dalai Lama: Human values.
5.Jump up ^ Girl Scouts of the USA (2010). "The Girl Scout Promise and Law". Retrieved 16 March 2010.
6.Jump up ^ "Officer Development". Retrieved 15 September 2010.
7.Jump up ^ Kidder 2003. 83–84
8.Jump up ^ "Information Paper on "Honor" – A Bedrock of Military Leadership". Retrieved 16 March 2010.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Stephen Jay Gould. "Nonmoral Nature". stephenjaygould.org. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
10.Jump up ^ Holyoake, George J. (1896). English Secularism. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company.
11.^ Jump up to: a b "Morality". aynrandlexicon.com. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
12.Jump up ^ Rand, Ayn (1957). Atlas Shrugged. p. 1058.
Bibliography[edit]
Kidder, Rushworth M. Kidder (2003). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York: Harper. ISBN 0-688-17590-2.
  


Categories: Freethought
Secularism
Humanism
Atheism







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
Català
Español
فارسی
Français
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
മലയാളം
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Türkçe
Edit links
This page was last modified on 4 June 2015, at 21:22.
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/Secular_ethics











Secular ethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)
Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics). Secular ethics comprises any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural, such as humanism, secularism and freethinking.
The majority of secular moral systems accept either the normativity of social contracts, some form of attribution of intrinsic moral value, intuition-based deontology, or cultural moral relativism. A smaller minority believe scientific reasoning can reveal moral truth. This is known as science of morality. Approaches like utilitarianism, subjective moral relativism, and ethical egoism are less common, but still maintain a significant following among secular ethicists.[citation needed] Little attention is paid to the positions of moral skepticism and moral nihilism; however, many religious and some secular ethicists believe that secular morality cannot exist without a god or gods to provide ontological grounding, or is at least impossible to apprehend apart from authoritative revelation.
Secular ethics frameworks do not necessarily contradict all theological values. For example, the Golden Rule or a commitment to non-violence, could be supported by those within religious and secular frameworks. Secular ethics systems can also vary within the societal and cultural norms of a specific time period.


Contents  [hide]
1 Tenets of secular ethics 1.1 Humanist ethics
1.2 Secular ethics and religion
2 Examples of secular ethical codes 2.1 Humanist Manifestos
2.2 Girl Scout law
2.3 United States Naval Academy honor concept
2.4 Minnesota Principles
2.5 Rotary Four-Way Test
2.6 Military codes 2.6.1 West Point Honor Code

3 Nature and ethics
4 Key philosophers and philosophical texts 4.1 Holyoake
4.2 Nietzsche
4.3 Kant
4.4 Utilitarianism
4.5 Objectivism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography

Tenets of secular ethics[edit]
Despite the width and diversity of their philosophical views, secular ethicists generally share one or more principles:
Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
This may lead to a behavior preferable to that propagated or condoned based on religious texts. Alternatively, this may lead to the advocacy of a system of moral principles that a broad group of people, both religious and non-religious, can agree upon.
Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.
Societies should, if at all possible, advance from a less ethical and just form to a more ethical and just form.
Many of these tenets are applied in the science of morality, the use of the scientific method to answer moral questions. Various thinkers have framed morality as questions of empirical truth to be explored in a scientific context. The science is related to ethical naturalism, a type of ethical realism.
In How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living, Rushworth Kidder identifies four general characteristics of an ethical code:
1. It is brief2. It is usually not explanatory3. Can be expressed in a number of forms (e.g. positive or negative, single words or a list of sentences)4. Centers on moral values[1]
Humanist ethics[edit]
Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, and that knowledge of right and wrong is based on our best understanding of our individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental or arbitrarily local source, therefore rejecting faith completely as a basis for action. The humanist ethics goal is a search for viable individual, social and political principles of conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility, ultimately eliminating human suffering.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world-wide umbrella organization for those adhering to the Humanist life stance.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.[2]
Humanism is known to adopt principles of the Golden Rule, of which the best-known English formulation is found in the words of Jesus of Nazareth, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Also consider the quote by Oscar Wilde: "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." This quotation emphasizes the respect for others' identity and ideals while downplaying the effects one has on others.
Secular ethics and religion[edit]
See also: Morality and Religion
There are those who state that religion is not necessary for moral behavior at all.[3] The Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things."[4]
Those who are unhappy with the negative orientation of traditional religious ethics believe that prohibitions can only set the absolute limits of what a society is willing to tolerate from people at their worst, not guide them towards achieving their best.[citation needed] In other words, someone who follows all these prohibitions has just barely avoided being a criminal, not acted as a positive influence on the world. They conclude that rational ethics can lead to a fully expressed ethical life, while religious prohibitions are insufficient.[citation needed]
That does not mean secular ethics and religion are mutually exclusive. In fact, many principles, such as the Golden Rule, are present in both systems, and some religious people, as well as some Deists, prefer to adopt a rational approach to ethics.[citation needed]
Examples of secular ethical codes[edit]
Humanist Manifestos[edit]
The Humanist Manifestos are three manifestos, the first published in 1933, that outline the philosophical views and stances of humanists. Integral to the manifestos is a lack of supernatural guidance.
Girl Scout law[edit]
The Girl Scout law is as follows:
I will do my best to be honest and fair,friendly and helpful,considerate and caring,courageous and strong, andresponsible for what I say and do,and to respect myself and others,respect authority,use resources wisely,make the world a better place, andbe a sister to every Girl Scout.[5]
United States Naval Academy honor concept[edit]
"Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right.
They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie.They embrace fairness in all actions. They ensure that work submitted as their own is their own, and that assistance received from any source is authorized and properly documented. They do not cheat.They respect the property of others and ensure that others are able to benefit from the use of their own property. They do not steal."[6]
Minnesota Principles[edit]
The Minnesota Principles were proposed "by the Minnesota Center for Corporate Responsibility in 1992 as a guide to international business activities":
1.Business activities must be characterized by fairness. We understand fairness to include equitable treatment and equality of opportunity for all participants in the marketplace.
2.Business activities must be characterized by honesty. We understand honesty to include candor, truthfulness and promise-keeping.
3.Business activities must be characterized by respect for human dignity. We understand this to mean that business activities should show a special concern for the less powerful and the disadvantaged.
4.Business activities must be characterized by respect for the environment. We understand this to mean that business activities should promote sustainable development and prevent environmental degradation and waste of resources.[7]
Rotary Four-Way Test[edit]
The Four-Way Test test is the "linchpin of Rotary International's ethical practice." It acts as a test of thoughts as well as actions. It asks, "Of the things we think, say, or do":
1.Is it the truth?
2.Is it fair to all concerned?
3.Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
4.Will it be beneficial to all concerned?[1]
Military codes[edit]
See also: Ranger Creed
As the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of a government religion, US military codes of conduct typically contain no religious overtones.
West Point Honor Code[edit]
The West Point honor code states that "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." The non-toleration clause is key in differentiating it from numerous other codes.[8]
Nature and ethics[edit]
See also: Social effect of evolutionary theory and evolutionary ethics
Whether or not the relationships between animals found in nature and between people in early human evolution can provide a basis for human morality is a persistently unresolved question. Thomas Henry Huxley wrote in Evolution and Ethics in 1893 that people make a grave error in trying to create moral ideas from the behavior of animals in nature. He remarked:

The practice of that which is ethically best — what we call goodness or virtue — involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows... It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence... Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process.[9]
Famous biologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould has stated that "answers will not be read passively from nature" and "[t]he factual state of the world does not teach us how we, with our powers for good and evil, should alter or preserve it in the most ethical manner". Thus, he concluded that ideas of morality should come from a form of higher mental reason, with nature viewed as an independent phenomenon.[9]
Evolutionary ethics is not the only way to involve nature with ethics. For example, there are ethically realist theories like ethical naturalism. Related to ethical naturalism is also the idea that ethics are best explored, not just using the lens of philosophy, but science as well (a science of morality).
Key philosophers and philosophical texts[edit]
Holyoake[edit]



 Holyoake, agnostic
George Jacob Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism thus:
"Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good."[10]
Holyoake held that secularism should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.

Nietzsche[edit]



 Nietzsche, atheist
Friedrich Nietzsche based his work on ethics on the rejection of Christianity and authority in general, or on moral nihilism. Nietzsche's many works spoke of a Master-Slave Morality, The Will to Power, or something stronger that overcomes the weaker and Darwinistic adaptation and will to live. Nietzsche expressed his moral philosophy throughout his collection of works; the most important of these to secular ethics being The Gay Science (in which the famous God is dead phrase was first used), Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil and On The Genealogy of Morals.



Kant[edit]



 Kant, theist (disputably Christian)
Main article: Kantian ethics
On ethics, Kant wrote works that both described the nature of universal principles and also sought to demonstrate the procedure of their application. Kant maintained that only a "good will" is morally praiseworthy, so that doing what appears to be ethical for the wrong reasons is not a morally good act. Kant's emphasis on one's intent or reasons for acting is usually contrasted with the utilitarian tenet that the goodness of an action is to be judged solely by its results. Utilitarianism is a hypothetical imperative, if one wants _____, they must do ______. Contrast this with the Kantian ethic of the categorical imperative, where the moral act is done for its own sake, and is framed: One must do ______ or alternatively, one must not do ______.
For instance, under Kantian ethics, if a person were to give money to charity because failure to do so would result in some sort of punishment from a god or Supreme Being, then the charitable donation would not be a morally good act. A dutiful action must be performed solely out of a sense of duty; any other motivation profanes the act and strips it of its moral quality.

Utilitarianism[edit]



John Stuart Mill, developer of Jeremy Bentham's utility-based theory
Main article: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. It is a form of consequentialism. This good to be maximized is usually happiness, pleasure, or preference satisfaction. Though some utilitarian theories might seek to maximize other consequences, these consequences generally have something to do with the welfare of people (or of people and nonhuman animals). For this reason, utilitarianism is often associated with the term welfarist consequentialism.
In utilitarianism it is the "end result" which is fundamental (as opposed to Kantian ethics discussed above). Thus using the same scenario as above, it would be irrelevant whether the person giving money to charity was doing so out of personal or religious conviction, the mere fact that the charitable donation is being made is sufficient for it to be classified as morally good.

Objectivism[edit]



 The mythological figure of Atlas is an icon of Objectivism.
Main article: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
According to Ayn Rand in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,

A moral code is a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code’s standard of value. The standard is the end, to which man’s actions are the means. A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into the appropriate concretes—he must choose the particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly.[11]
Thus, she stated in her book For the New Intellectual that her morality is contained in a single axiom. She described it as the fact that "existence exists— and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these." Objectivist ethics holds that the only true moral standard is that a person should act to do what is in their rational self-interest in benefit of themselves. No other standard of judging behavior should exist otherwise. The twin related principles of reason and of free will are key in allowing an individual to determine their self-interest.[11]
Ayn Rand has also coined the phrase "I am, therefore I'll think"[12] as a summary of the process. In the novel Atlas Shrugged, the character John Galt said that he based his actions on his belief that "I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

See also[edit]
Anthropocentrism
Anarchism
Brights movement
Cognitivism with subcategories Ethical naturalism & Ethical non-naturalism, and opponent Non-cognitivism
Environmentalism
Ethical subjectivism
Hedonism
Liberalism
Marxism
Moral realism
Moral relativism
Moral skepticism
Moral Zeitgeist
Normative ethics
Objectivism
Peter Singer
Secular humanism
Secular religion
Socialism
Utilitarian bioethics
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Kidder 2003. 82
2.Jump up ^ Humanism's Unfinished Agenda
3.Jump up ^ Is Atheism Consistent With Morality?, paper (2001) by Mark I. Vuletic
4.Jump up ^ Interview with the Dalai Lama, The Progressive (January 2006), scroll to Question: Apart from Buddhism, what are your sources of inspiration? The Dalai Lama: Human values.
5.Jump up ^ Girl Scouts of the USA (2010). "The Girl Scout Promise and Law". Retrieved 16 March 2010.
6.Jump up ^ "Officer Development". Retrieved 15 September 2010.
7.Jump up ^ Kidder 2003. 83–84
8.Jump up ^ "Information Paper on "Honor" – A Bedrock of Military Leadership". Retrieved 16 March 2010.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Stephen Jay Gould. "Nonmoral Nature". stephenjaygould.org. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
10.Jump up ^ Holyoake, George J. (1896). English Secularism. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company.
11.^ Jump up to: a b "Morality". aynrandlexicon.com. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
12.Jump up ^ Rand, Ayn (1957). Atlas Shrugged. p. 1058.
Bibliography[edit]
Kidder, Rushworth M. Kidder (2003). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York: Harper. ISBN 0-688-17590-2.
  


Categories: Freethought
Secularism
Humanism
Atheism







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
Català
Español
فارسی
Français
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
മലയാളം
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Türkçe
Edit links
This page was last modified on 4 June 2015, at 21:22.
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/Secular_ethics








History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.


Globe icon.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.  (October 2012)


Unbalanced scales.svg

This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints.  (October 2012)



 This article gives a historical overview of Christian positions on Persecution of Christians, persecutions by Christians, religious persecution and toleration. Christian theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas had legitimized religious persecution to various extents, and during the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Christians considered heresy and dissent to be punishable offences. However, Early modern Europe witnessed the turning point in the history of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance. Christian writers like John Milton and John Locke argued for limited religious toleration, and later secular authors like Thomas Jefferson developed the concept of religious freedom. Christians nowadays generally accept that heresy and dissent are not punishable by a civil authority. Many Christians "look back on the centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Historical background
2 Christian Roman doctrine in 4th and 5th century A.D. 2.1 The Augustinian consensus
2.2 The treatment of heretics
3 The Protestant theory of persecution
4 Protestant advocacy for toleration 4.1 The English Protestant 'Call for Toleration'
4.2 Developments in 17th-century England
5 In the United States
6 The mid-20th-century Spanish model
7 Modern Roman Catholic policy
8 See also
9 Literature
10 Notes
11 Further reading

Historical background[edit]
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 beginning under his reign, Christian heretics were persecuted; The most extreme case (as far as historians know) was the burning of Priscillian and six of his followers at the stake in 383.[2] In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[3] Beginning in the late 4th century A.D. also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed.
After the decline of the Roman Empire, the further Christianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful,[4] although Jews and Muslims were harshly prosecuted, to an extent of forced conversions in Byzantine empire. Encounters between Christians and Pagans were sometimes confrontational, and some Christian kings (Charlemagne, Olaf I of Norway) were known for their violence against pagans. The persecution of Christian heretics resumed in 1022, when fourteen people were burned at Orléans.[2] Around this time Bogomilism and Catharism appeared in Europe; these sects were seen as heretic by the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition was initially established to counter them. Heavily persecuted, these heresies were eradicated by the 14th century. The suppression of the Cathar (or "Albigensian") faith took the form of the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229), a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church. Its violence was extreme even by medieval standards. Notable individuals who were executed for heresy in the late Middle Ages are Jerome of Prague, John Badby and Jan Hus. Only the Waldensians, another heretical Christian sect, managed to survive in remote areas in Northern Italy.
Also during the late Middle Ages, the Crusades pitched Christians and Muslims against each other in a war about the possession of Jerusalem, with atrocities from both sides. There were massacres of Muslims and Jews when Jerusalem was taken by Crusaders in 1099. There were also the Northern Crusades, against the remaining pagans in Northern Europe. As a result, the pagan religions in Europe disappeared almost completely. After Grand Duchy of Moscow and later the Tsardom had conquered the Kazan Khanate and Astrakhan Khanate in the 1550s, the government forcibly baptized Muslim Volga Tatars and pagan Chuvash, Mordva and Mari. Mosques were prohibited. This persecution ended only under the reign of Catherine II of Russia in the late eighteenth century.
The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition also went on to persecute Jews and Muslims. In Spain after the Reconquista, Jews were forced to either convert or be exiled. Many were killed. The persecution of Jews goes back to 12th-century Visigothic Spain after the emergence of the blood libel against Jews. Although the Spanish had agreed to allow Muslims the freedom of religion in 1492, this was often ignored. In 1501, Muslims were offered the choice of conversion or exile. In 1556, Arab or Muslim dress was forbidden, and in 1566 Arabic language as a whole was prohibited in Spain.[5] Jews were eventually expelled from England by King Edward I, too.
When Martin Luther wrote his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, Catholicism reacted the same way as it had to the heresies of the late Middle Ages. However, while the Protestant Reformation could be "crushed" in Spain with "a few dozen executions in the 1550s",[6] the same strategy failed in Germany, Northern Europe and in England. France had to suffer through the French Wars of Religion before it again became wholly Catholic. The divide between Catholicism and the new Protestant denominations was deep. Protestants commonly alleged that the catholic Pope was the Antichrist. Conflicts between Christian factions reached their heights in France with the 1572 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in Germany and Central Europe with the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) and in England with the English Civil War (1641–1651). Following the devastations caused by these wars, the ideas of religious toleration, freedom of religion and religious pluralism slowly gained ground in Europe. The Witch trials in Early Modern Europe, which had reached their height between 1550 and 1650, continued until 1750.
European Colonialism, that was accompanied by Christian evangelism and often by violence, led to the suppression of indigenous religions in the territories conquered or usurped by the Europeans. The Spanish colonization of the Americas largely destroyed the Aztec and Inca civilization. However, Colonialism (and later European Imperialism) as a whole were not motivated by religious zeal; the suppression of the indigenous religions was their side result, not their main purpose. Only partial aspects, like the Goa Inquisition, bear resemblance to the persecutions that occurred on the European continent. By the 18th century, persecutions of unsanctioned beliefs had been reduced in most Europeans countries to religious discrimination, in the form of legal restrictions on those who did not accept the official faith. This often included being barred from higher education, or from participation in the national legislature. In colonized nations, attempts to convert native peoples to Christianity became more encouraging and less forceful. In British India during the Victorian era, Christian converts were given preferential treatment for governmental appointments.
At the present time, most countries in which Christianity is the religion of the majority of the people, are either secular states or they embrace the separation of Church and State in another way. (A list of countries in which Christianity still is the state religion can be found at the article on State religion.) Some recent political conflicts are sometimes considered as religious persecution. Among these, there is the case of the Hue Vesak shootings in Vietnam on May 8, 1963 and the ethnic cleansing of Albanians, most of them Muslim, in Kosovo between 1992 to 1999, along with Bosnian Muslims.[7]
Christian Roman doctrine in 4th and 5th century A.D.[edit]
Main article: Persecution of Pagans by the Christian Roman Empire
After he had adopted Christianity following the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine I issued the Edict of Milan in 313 (together with his co-emperor Licinius). Since 306 there had already had been several edicts that granted Christians religious toleration in parts of the Empire, but the Edict of Milan removed all obstacles to the Christian faith and made the Empire officially neutral with regard to religious worship. Constantine supported the church with his patronage; he had an extraordinary number of large basilicas built for the Christian church, and endowed it with land and other wealth.[8] In doing this, however, he required the Pagans "to foot the bill".[8] According to Christian chroniclers it appeared necessary to Constantine "to teach his subjects to give up their rites (...) and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,"[9] which led to the closure of pagan temples due to a lack of support, their wealth flowing to the imperial treasure;[10] Constantine I did not need to use force to implement this;[8] his subjects are said to simply have obeyed him out of fear. Only the chronicler Theophanes has added that temples "were annihilated", but this is considered "not true" by contemporary historians.[11] According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen Constantine desired to obliterate non-Christians but lacking the means he had to be content with robbing their temples towards the end of his reign.[12] He resorted to derogatory and contemptuous comments relating to the old religion; writing of the "obstinacy" of the pagans, of their "misguided rites and ceremonial", and of their "temples of lying" contrasted with "the splendours of the home of truth".[13]
During the course of his life he progressively became more Christian and turned away from any syncretic tendencies he appeared to favour at times and thus demonstrating, according to his biographers, that "The God of the Christians was indeed a jealous God who tolerated no other gods beside him. The Church could never acknowledge that she stood on the same plane with other religious bodies, she conquered for herself one domain after another".[14]
After the 3-year-reign of Julian the Apostate (ruled 361 to 363), who revived the Roman state paganism for a short time, the later Christian Roman Emperors sanctioned "attacks on pagan worship".[15] Towards the end of the 4th century Theodosius worked to establish Catholicism as the privileged religion in the Roman Empire."Theodosius was not the man to sympathise with the balancing policy of the Edict of Milan. He set himself steadfastly to the work of establishing Catholicism as the privileged religion of the state, of repressing dissident Christians (heretics) and of enacting explicit legal measures to abolish Paganism in all its phases."[16]
Two hundred and fifty years after Constantine was converted and began the long campaign of official temple destruction and outlawing of non-Christian worship Justinian was still engaged in the war of dissent.[17]
The Augustinian consensus[edit]
The transformation that happened in the 4th century lies at the heart of the debate between those Christian authors who advocated religious persecution and those who rejected it.[15] Most of all, the advocates of persecution looked to the writings of Augustine of Hippo,[15] the most influential of the Christian Church Fathers in the Latin West.[18] Initially (in the 390s), he had been sceptical about the use of coercion in religious matters. However, he changed his mind after he had witnessed how the Donatists (a schismatic Christian sect) were "brought over to the Catholic unity by fear of imperial edicts." When Augustine had characterized himself in De utilitate credenti (392), he said he was cupidus veri, eager for truth.[19] But in his 93. letter he described himself as quietis avidus, needing rest, and gave as reason the agitating Donatist.[19] From a position that had trusted the power of philosophical argumentation, Augustine had moved to a position that emphasised the authority of the church.[19] Augustine had become convinced of the effectiveness of mild forms of persecution and developed a defence of their use. His authority on this question was undisputed for over a millennium in Western Christianity.[15] Within this Augustinian consensus there was only disagreement about the extent to which Christians should persecute heretics. Augustine advocated fines, imprisonment, banishment and moderate floggings, but, according to Henry Chadwick, "would have been horrified by the burning of heretics."[20] In late Antiquity those burnings appear very rare indeed, the only certain case being the execution of Priscillian and six of his followers in 385. This sentence was roundly condemned by bishops like Ambrose, Augustine's mentor.[21]
The treatment of heretics[edit]
Further information: Christian heresy
With the adoption of Christianity by Constantine I (after Battle of Milvian Bridge, 312), heresy had become a political issue in the late Roman empire. Adherents of unconventional Christian beliefs not covered by the Nicene Creed like Novatianism and Gnosticism were banned from holding meetings,[15] but the Roman emperor intervened especially in the conflict between orthodox and Arian Christianity, which resulted in the burning of Arian books.[15]
In contrast to the late antiquity, the execution of heretics was much more easily approved in the late Middle Ages, after the Christianization of Europe was largely completed. The first known case is the burning of fourteen people at Orléans in 1022.[21] In the following centuries groups like the Bogomils, Waldensians, Cathars and Lollards were persecuted throughout Europe. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) codified the theory and practise of persecution.[21] In its third canon, the council declared: "Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, .. to take an oath that they will strive .. to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church."[22]
Saint Thomas Aquinas summed up the standard medieval position, when he declared that that obstinate heretics deserved "not only to be separated from the Church, but also to be eliminated from the world by death" [23]
The Old Testament has been the main source for Christian theologians advocating religious persecution. An example of this would be John Jewel. In defending the demand for religious uniformity by Elizabeth I of England, he declared: "Queen Elizabeth doth as did Moses, Josua, David, Salomon, Josias, Jesophat, ..." [24]
The Protestant theory of persecution[edit]
The Protestant Reformation changed the face of Western Christianity forever, but initially it did nothing to change the Christian endorsement of religious persecution. The Reformers "fully embraced" Augustine's advocacy of coercion in religious matters, and many regarded the death penalty for heresy as legitimate.[21] Furthermore, by presenting a much more powerful threat to Catholic unity than the heretic groups of the Middle Ages, the Reformation led to the intensification of persecution under Catholic regimes.
Martin Luther had written against persecution in the 1520s, and had demonstrated genuine sympathy towards the Jews in his earlier writings, especially in Das Jesus ein geborener Jude sei (That Jesus was born as a Jew) from 1523, but after 1525 his position hardened. In Wider die Sabbather an einen guten Freund (Against the Sabbather to a Good Friend), 1538, he still considered a conversion of the Jews to Christianity as possible,[25] but in 1543 he published On the Jews and their Lies, a "violent anti-semitic tract."[26]
John Calvin helped to secure the execution for heresy of Michael Servetus,[27] although he unsuccessfully requested that he should be beheaded instead of being burned at the stake.
Effectively, however, the 16th-century Protestant view was less extreme than the mediaeval Catholic position. In England, John Foxe, John Hales, Richard Perrinchief, Herbert Thorndike and Jonas Proast all only saw mild forms of persecution against the English Dissenters as legitimate.[28] But (with the probable exception of John Foxe), this was only a retraction in degree, not a full rejection of religious persecution. There is also the crucial distinction between dissent and heresy to consider. Most dissenters disagreed with the Anglican Church only on secondary matters of worship and ecclesiology, and although this was a considered a serious sin, only a few 17th-century Anglican writers thought that this 'crime' deserved the death penalty.[29]
The Elizabethan bishop Thomas Bilson was of the opinion that men ought to be "corrected, not murdered", but he did not condemn the Christian Emperors for executing the Manichaeans for "monstrous blasphemies".[30] The Lutheran theologian Georgius Calixtus argued for the reconciliation of Christendom by removing all unimportant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and Rupertus Meldenius advocated in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion) in 1626.[31]
Protestant advocacy for toleration[edit]
The English Protestant 'Call for Toleration'[edit]
While the Christian theologians mentioned above advocated religious persecution to various extents, it was also Christians who helped pioneer the concept of religious toleration.
In his book on 'The English Reformation', particularly in the chapter 'The Origins of Religious Toleration', the late A. G. Dickens argued that from the beginning of the Reformation there had "existed in Protestant thought – in Zwingli, Melanchthon and Bucer, as well as among the Anabaptists – a more liberal tradition, which John Frith was perhaps the first echo in England".[32] Condemned for heresy, Frith was burnt at the stake in 1533. In his own mind, he died not because of the denial of the doctrines on purgatory and transubstantiation but "for the principle that a particular doctrine on either point was not a necessary part of a Christian's faith".[33] In other words, there was an important distinction to be made between a genuine article of faith and other matters where a variety of very different conclusions should be tolerated within the Church. This stand against unreasonable and profligate dogmatism meant that Frith, "to a greater extent than any other of our early Protestants", upheld "a certain degree of religious freedom".[33]
Frith was not alone. John Foxe, for example, "strove hard to save Anabaptists from the fire, and he enunciated a sweeping doctrine of tolerance even towards Catholics, whose doctrines he detested with every fibre of his being".[34]
In the early 17th century, Thomas Helwys was principal formulator of that distinctively Baptist request: that the church and the state be kept separate in matters of law, so that individuals might have a freedom of religious conscience. Helwys said the King "is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them".[35] King James I had Helwys thrown into Newgate prison, where he had died by 1616 at about the age of forty.
By the time of the English Revolution Helwys' stance on religious toleration was more commonplace. However, whilst accepting their zeal in desiring a 'godly society', some contemporary historians doubt whether the English Puritans during the English Revolution were as committed to religious liberty and pluralism as traditional histories have suggested. However, historian John Coffey's recent work[36] emphasises the contribution of a minority of radical Protestants who steadfastly sought toleration for heresy, blasphemy, Catholicism, non-Christian religions, and even atheism. This minority included the Seekers, as well as the General Baptists and the Levellers. Their collective witness demanded the church be an entirely voluntary, non-coercive community able to evangelise in a pluralistic society governed by a purely civil state. Such a demand was in sharp contrast to the ambitions of the magisterial Protestantism of the Calvinist majority.
In 1644 the "Augustinian consensus concerning persecution was irreparably fractured."[37] This year can be identified quite exactly, because 1644 saw the publication of John Milton's Areopagitica, William Walwyn's The Compassionate Samaritane, Henry Robinson's Liberty of Conscience and Roger William's The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution. These authors were Puritans or had dissented from the Church of England, and their radical Protestantism led them to condemn religious persecution, which they saw as a popish corruption of primitive Christianity.[38] Other non-Anglican writers advocating toleration were Richard Overton, John Wildman and John Goodwin, the Baptists Samuel Richardson and Thomas Collier and the Quakers Samuel Fisher and William Penn. Anglicans who argued against persecution were: John Locke, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, James Harrington, Jeremy Taylor, Henry More, John Tillotson and Gilbert Burnet.[39]
All of these considered themselves Christians or were actual churchmen. John Milton and John Locke are the predecessors of modern liberalism. Although Milton was a Puritan and Locke an Anglican, Areopagitica and A Letter concerning Toleration are canonical liberal texts.[40] Only from the 1690s onwards the philosophy of Deism emerged, and with it a third group that advocated religious toleration, but, unlike the radical Protestants and the Anglicans, also rejected biblical authority; this group prominently includes Voltaire, Frederick II of Prussia, Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, Thomas Jefferson and the English-Irish philosopher John Toland.[38] When Toland published the writings of Milton, Edmund Ludlow and Algernon Sidney, he tried to downplay the Puritan divinity in these works.[41]
The Holy Roman Emperor, Joseph II, issued the Patent of Toleration in 1781.
Developments in 17th-century England[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (July 2009)
Following the debates that started in the 1640s the Church of England was the first Christian church to grant adherents of other Christian denominations freedom of worship, with the Act of Toleration 1689, which nevertheless still retained some forms of religious discrimination and did not include toleration for Catholics. At present, only individuals who are members of the Church of England at the time of the succession may become the British monarch.
In the United States[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (October 2012)
Main article: Freedom of religion in the United States
The Puritan-Whig tradition of toleration did have their greatest effect not in England, but in the Thirteen Colonies that would later form the United States.[41] Notable tolerationists were directly involved in the founding of the colonies. Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island, "a haven for persecuted minorities,"[41] John Locke drafted the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina and William Penn drew up the constitution of Pennsylvania. Voltaire pointed the readers of his Traité sur la Tolérance (1763) specifically to the examples of Carolina and Pennsylvania.[41] People like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams stood self-consciously in the tradition of Milton, Sidney and Locke, and extended their tolerationism further to also apply to Catholics and atheists.[42] Coffey considers it possible to argue, "that the tolerationist tradition of seventeenth-century England reached its fulfilment in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and the First Amendment to the American Constitution."[42]
That the North American colonies and later the United States provided a refuge for religious minorities from Europe partly explains the higher degree of religiosity in the contemporary United States and the "unusual sectarian quality of U.S. Protestantism".[43] Compared to Europe, "the United States has a superabundance of denominations and sects (...) as well as a far higher ratio of churchgoers."[44] Which importance the Christian religion should have in the United States, with its strong concept of Separation of church and state, is a contentious question. For Kevin Phillips, who wrote a book with the polemical title American Theocracy, "few questions will be more important to the twenty-first-century United States than whether renascent religion and its accompanying hubris will be carried on the nation's books as an asset or as a liability."[45]
According to a 2008 survey, 65% of US-American Christians believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.[46] 52% of US-American Christians think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life.[46]
(At its surface, the percentages above seem contradictory; the key is in the appellation of the term non-Christian in the second, lesser quantity. For some Christians, different sects of Christianity represent "different religions." These people thus mistake the survey term "many religions" to mean "different sects of Christianity," even though that is not the common intended use of the phrase. What the survey really shows is that more US Christians believe that God can make himself known through multiple Christian sects, than believe that He can make Himself known even through other religions. It is worth noting that a majority of US Christians take the more inclusive stance.)
The mid-20th-century Spanish model[edit]
As of the mid-20th century, an example of Catholic church-state relations was the Catholic situation in Franco's Spain, where under the National Catholicism doctrine the Catholic Church:
was officially recognized and protected by the state,
had substantial control over social policy, and
had this relationship explicitly set out in a Concordat.
It had long been the policy of the Catholic Church to support toleration of competing religions under such a scheme, but to support legal restrictions on attempts to convert Catholics to those religions, under the motto that "error has no rights".[citation needed]
Modern Roman Catholic policy[edit]
On the seventh of December 1965 The Catholic Church as part of the Vatican II council issued the decree "Dignitatis humanae" that dealt with the rights of the person and communities to social and civil liberty in religious matters. It states: "2. The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or public, alone or in associations with others. The Vatican Council further declares that the right of religious freedom is based on the very word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civic right...but if it [the civil authority] presumes to control or restrict religious activity it must be said to have exceeded the limits of its power...Therefore, provided the just requirements of public order are not violated, these groups [i.e. religious communities] have a right to immunity so that they may organize their own lives according to their religious principles...From this it follows that it is wrong for a public authority to compel its citizens by force or fear or any other means to profess or repudiate any religion or to prevent anyone from joining or leaving a religious body. There is even more serious transgression of God's will and of the sacred rights of the individual person and the family of nations when force is applied to wipe out or repress religion either throughout the whole world or in a single region or in a particular community".[47]
On 12 March 2000 Pope John Paul II prayed for forgiveness because "Christians have often denied the Gospel; yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions" [48]
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) wrote "The quality of exemplarity which the honest admission of past faults can exert on attitudes within the Church and civil society should also be noted, for it gives rise to a renewed obedience to the Truth and to respect for the dignity and the rights of others, most especially, of the very weak. In this sense, the numerous requests for forgiveness formulated by John Paul II constitute an example that draws attention to something good and stimulates the imitation of it, recalling individuals and groups of people to an honest and fruitful examination of conscience with a view to reconciliation"[49]
See also[edit]
Blood libel against Jews
Boxer Rebellion
Caucasian War
Marrano
Expulsion of Moriscos
Colonialism European colonization of the Americas
Criticisms of Christianity
Iconoclasm
Arianism
Saxon Wars
Sack of Magdeburg
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
Missions Indian boarding school
Missionaries in India
Dominionism
Theocracy
 Persecution of Ancient Greek religion History of the Jews in Spain
Taiping Rebellion
Witch-hunt Salem witch trials
Germanic Christianity
Christianization of Scandinavia
Baptism of Poland
Christianization of Kievan Rus'
Pagan reaction in Poland
Constantine I and Christianity
Crusades
First Crusade Northern Crusades
Albigensian Crusade
Anti-Hussite Crusade
Christian terrorism
Totalism
 Persecution of Muslims
Persecution of Atheists
Christianization
Conquistador
Santería
Spanish Inquisition
Portuguese Inquisition Goa Inquisition
Medieval Inquisition Waldensians
Lollardy
Catharism
Ku Klux Klan
New Christian
Public Worship Regulation Act 1874
Religious discrimination against Neopagans
Universalism
History of Christian theology

Literature[edit]
John Coffey (2000), Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History, Pearson Education
Ramsay MacMullen, "Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D.100-400, Yale University Press, 1984, ISBN 0-300-03642-6
Ramsay MacMullen, "Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries", Yale University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-300-07148-5
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 206.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Coffey 2000: 23
3.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 22
4.Jump up ^ Lutz E. von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mitterlalter, Reclam (German), p. 183
5.Jump up ^ Lapidus, Ira M. (1988). A History of Islamic societes. Cambridge University Press. p. 389. ISBN 0-521-22552-3.
6.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 212
7.Jump up ^ Barbara Larkin (editor). International Religious Freedom (2000): Report to Congress by the Department of State. ISBN 0-7567-1229-7.
8.^ Jump up to: a b c MacMullan 1984:49.
9.Jump up ^ quoted after MacMullan 1984:49.
10.Jump up ^ MacMullan 1984:50.
11.Jump up ^ MacMullan 1984: 141, Note 35 to Chapter V; Theophanes, Chron. a. 322 (PG 108.117)
12.Jump up ^ MacMullan 1984:96.
13.Jump up ^ "A History of the Church", Philip Hughes, Sheed & Ward, rev ed 1949, vol I chapter 6.[1]
14.Jump up ^ C. G. Herbermann & Georg Grupp, "Constantine the Great", Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, New Advent web site.
15.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Coffey 2000:22.
16.Jump up ^ "Studies in Comparative Religion, "The Conversion of the Roman Empire, Philip Hughes, Vol 3, CTS.
17.Jump up ^ R. MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries, P151, ISBN 0-300-07148-5
18.Jump up ^ Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, ed. by Johannes van Oort et al., 2001, back cover
19.^ Jump up to: a b c Kurt Flasch: Augustin - Einführung in sein Denken (German), 3. ed., Reclam, 2003, p.168
20.Jump up ^ quoted after Coffey 2000: 23.
21.^ Jump up to: a b c d Coffey 2000:23.
22.Jump up ^ Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215
23.Jump up ^ Auqinas, Summa Theologica, quoted after Aquinas, Selected Political Writings (Oxford, 1959), p.77
24.Jump up ^ John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.31
25.Jump up ^ Thomas Kaufmann, 2005: Luthers "Judenschriften in ihren historischen Kontexten (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen) (German), p. 526
26.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 23, 24
27.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 24.
28.Jump up ^ see Coffey 2000: 24,25.
29.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 25
30.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 24,26; Thomas Bilson 1585, The True Difference between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion, pp. 19,20, 383.
31.Jump up ^ German Wikipedia: Rupertus Meldenius
32.Jump up ^ Dickens, A.G. (1978). 'The English Reformation'. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 438.;
33.^ Jump up to: a b Dickens, A.G. (1978). 'The English Reformation'. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 116.;
34.Jump up ^ Dickens, A.G. (1978). 'The English Reformation'. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. pp. 439–440.;
35.Jump up ^ Helwys, Thomas (1612). ‘A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity’.;
36.Jump up ^ Coffey, John (1998) "Puritanism & Liberty Revisited: The Case for Toleration in the English Revolution", The Historical Journal, Cambridge University Press.
37.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 47.
38.^ Jump up to: a b Coffey 2000: 50.
39.Jump up ^ This list is taken from: Coffey (2000), 50
40.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 206; A. Patterson, Early Modern Liberalism, Cambridge 1997
41.^ Jump up to: a b c d Coffey 2000: 207.
42.^ Jump up to: a b Coffey 2000: 208.
43.Jump up ^ Kevin Phillips (2006): American Theocracy. The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. p. 104
44.Jump up ^ Kevin Phillips (2006): 105.
45.Jump up ^ Kevin Phillips (2006): 99.
46.^ Jump up to: a b PEW Forum, Dec. 18, 2008: Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life
47.Jump up ^ Austin Flannery (General Editor), Vatican Council II - The Conciliar and Post Concilliar Documents, 1981 Edition
48.Jump up ^ "POPE JOHN PAUL II ASKS FOR FORGIVENESS", (MARCH 12, 2000), fetched 16th April 2007 [2]
49.Jump up ^ "Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "MEMORY AND RECONCILIATION: THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST", International Theological Commission held in Rome from 1998 to 1999, fetched 17 April 2008 [3]
Further reading[edit]
John Courtney Murray; J. Leon Hooper (1993). Religious Liberty: Catholic Struggles With Pluralism. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-25360-8.
Robert P. Geraci; Michael Khodarkovsky (2001). Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-3327-6.
Ole Peter Grell; Bob Scribner (2002). Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89412-8.
R. Po-Chia Hsia; Henk Van Nierop (2002). Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80682-4.
Chris Beneke (2006): Beyond toleration. the religious origins of American pluralism, Oxford University Press
Alexandra Walsham (2006): Charitable hatred. Tolerance and intolerance in England, 1500 - 1700, Manchester University Press
Hans Erich Bödeker; Clorinda Donato; Peter Reill (2008). Discourses of Tolerance & Intolerance in the European Enlightenment. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-9136-0.
C. Scott Dixon; Dagmar Freist; Mark Greengrass (2009). Living With Religious Diversity in Early-Modern Europe. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6668-4.
Adam Wolfson (2010). Persecution or Toleration: An Explication of the Locke-Proast Quarrel, 1689-1704. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-4724-5.
John Corrigan; Lynn S. Neal (2010). Religious Intolerance in America: A Documentary History. Univ of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3389-6.
John Laursen; Cary Nederman (2011). Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-1567-0.
Chris Beneke; Christopher Grenda (2011). The First Prejudice: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Early America. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-4270-6.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious persecution and discrimination





























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity



























The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea























































































































































































































  


Categories: Religious persecution
Persecution by Christians
History of Christianity











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
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 April 2015, at 07:19.
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/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance










History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.


Globe icon.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.  (October 2012)


Unbalanced scales.svg

This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints.  (October 2012)



 This article gives a historical overview of Christian positions on Persecution of Christians, persecutions by Christians, religious persecution and toleration. Christian theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas had legitimized religious persecution to various extents, and during the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Christians considered heresy and dissent to be punishable offences. However, Early modern Europe witnessed the turning point in the history of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance. Christian writers like John Milton and John Locke argued for limited religious toleration, and later secular authors like Thomas Jefferson developed the concept of religious freedom. Christians nowadays generally accept that heresy and dissent are not punishable by a civil authority. Many Christians "look back on the centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Historical background
2 Christian Roman doctrine in 4th and 5th century A.D. 2.1 The Augustinian consensus
2.2 The treatment of heretics
3 The Protestant theory of persecution
4 Protestant advocacy for toleration 4.1 The English Protestant 'Call for Toleration'
4.2 Developments in 17th-century England
5 In the United States
6 The mid-20th-century Spanish model
7 Modern Roman Catholic policy
8 See also
9 Literature
10 Notes
11 Further reading

Historical background[edit]
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 beginning under his reign, Christian heretics were persecuted; The most extreme case (as far as historians know) was the burning of Priscillian and six of his followers at the stake in 383.[2] In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[3] Beginning in the late 4th century A.D. also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed.
After the decline of the Roman Empire, the further Christianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful,[4] although Jews and Muslims were harshly prosecuted, to an extent of forced conversions in Byzantine empire. Encounters between Christians and Pagans were sometimes confrontational, and some Christian kings (Charlemagne, Olaf I of Norway) were known for their violence against pagans. The persecution of Christian heretics resumed in 1022, when fourteen people were burned at Orléans.[2] Around this time Bogomilism and Catharism appeared in Europe; these sects were seen as heretic by the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition was initially established to counter them. Heavily persecuted, these heresies were eradicated by the 14th century. The suppression of the Cathar (or "Albigensian") faith took the form of the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229), a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church. Its violence was extreme even by medieval standards. Notable individuals who were executed for heresy in the late Middle Ages are Jerome of Prague, John Badby and Jan Hus. Only the Waldensians, another heretical Christian sect, managed to survive in remote areas in Northern Italy.
Also during the late Middle Ages, the Crusades pitched Christians and Muslims against each other in a war about the possession of Jerusalem, with atrocities from both sides. There were massacres of Muslims and Jews when Jerusalem was taken by Crusaders in 1099. There were also the Northern Crusades, against the remaining pagans in Northern Europe. As a result, the pagan religions in Europe disappeared almost completely. After Grand Duchy of Moscow and later the Tsardom had conquered the Kazan Khanate and Astrakhan Khanate in the 1550s, the government forcibly baptized Muslim Volga Tatars and pagan Chuvash, Mordva and Mari. Mosques were prohibited. This persecution ended only under the reign of Catherine II of Russia in the late eighteenth century.
The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition also went on to persecute Jews and Muslims. In Spain after the Reconquista, Jews were forced to either convert or be exiled. Many were killed. The persecution of Jews goes back to 12th-century Visigothic Spain after the emergence of the blood libel against Jews. Although the Spanish had agreed to allow Muslims the freedom of religion in 1492, this was often ignored. In 1501, Muslims were offered the choice of conversion or exile. In 1556, Arab or Muslim dress was forbidden, and in 1566 Arabic language as a whole was prohibited in Spain.[5] Jews were eventually expelled from England by King Edward I, too.
When Martin Luther wrote his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, Catholicism reacted the same way as it had to the heresies of the late Middle Ages. However, while the Protestant Reformation could be "crushed" in Spain with "a few dozen executions in the 1550s",[6] the same strategy failed in Germany, Northern Europe and in England. France had to suffer through the French Wars of Religion before it again became wholly Catholic. The divide between Catholicism and the new Protestant denominations was deep. Protestants commonly alleged that the catholic Pope was the Antichrist. Conflicts between Christian factions reached their heights in France with the 1572 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in Germany and Central Europe with the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) and in England with the English Civil War (1641–1651). Following the devastations caused by these wars, the ideas of religious toleration, freedom of religion and religious pluralism slowly gained ground in Europe. The Witch trials in Early Modern Europe, which had reached their height between 1550 and 1650, continued until 1750.
European Colonialism, that was accompanied by Christian evangelism and often by violence, led to the suppression of indigenous religions in the territories conquered or usurped by the Europeans. The Spanish colonization of the Americas largely destroyed the Aztec and Inca civilization. However, Colonialism (and later European Imperialism) as a whole were not motivated by religious zeal; the suppression of the indigenous religions was their side result, not their main purpose. Only partial aspects, like the Goa Inquisition, bear resemblance to the persecutions that occurred on the European continent. By the 18th century, persecutions of unsanctioned beliefs had been reduced in most Europeans countries to religious discrimination, in the form of legal restrictions on those who did not accept the official faith. This often included being barred from higher education, or from participation in the national legislature. In colonized nations, attempts to convert native peoples to Christianity became more encouraging and less forceful. In British India during the Victorian era, Christian converts were given preferential treatment for governmental appointments.
At the present time, most countries in which Christianity is the religion of the majority of the people, are either secular states or they embrace the separation of Church and State in another way. (A list of countries in which Christianity still is the state religion can be found at the article on State religion.) Some recent political conflicts are sometimes considered as religious persecution. Among these, there is the case of the Hue Vesak shootings in Vietnam on May 8, 1963 and the ethnic cleansing of Albanians, most of them Muslim, in Kosovo between 1992 to 1999, along with Bosnian Muslims.[7]
Christian Roman doctrine in 4th and 5th century A.D.[edit]
Main article: Persecution of Pagans by the Christian Roman Empire
After he had adopted Christianity following the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine I issued the Edict of Milan in 313 (together with his co-emperor Licinius). Since 306 there had already had been several edicts that granted Christians religious toleration in parts of the Empire, but the Edict of Milan removed all obstacles to the Christian faith and made the Empire officially neutral with regard to religious worship. Constantine supported the church with his patronage; he had an extraordinary number of large basilicas built for the Christian church, and endowed it with land and other wealth.[8] In doing this, however, he required the Pagans "to foot the bill".[8] According to Christian chroniclers it appeared necessary to Constantine "to teach his subjects to give up their rites (...) and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,"[9] which led to the closure of pagan temples due to a lack of support, their wealth flowing to the imperial treasure;[10] Constantine I did not need to use force to implement this;[8] his subjects are said to simply have obeyed him out of fear. Only the chronicler Theophanes has added that temples "were annihilated", but this is considered "not true" by contemporary historians.[11] According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen Constantine desired to obliterate non-Christians but lacking the means he had to be content with robbing their temples towards the end of his reign.[12] He resorted to derogatory and contemptuous comments relating to the old religion; writing of the "obstinacy" of the pagans, of their "misguided rites and ceremonial", and of their "temples of lying" contrasted with "the splendours of the home of truth".[13]
During the course of his life he progressively became more Christian and turned away from any syncretic tendencies he appeared to favour at times and thus demonstrating, according to his biographers, that "The God of the Christians was indeed a jealous God who tolerated no other gods beside him. The Church could never acknowledge that she stood on the same plane with other religious bodies, she conquered for herself one domain after another".[14]
After the 3-year-reign of Julian the Apostate (ruled 361 to 363), who revived the Roman state paganism for a short time, the later Christian Roman Emperors sanctioned "attacks on pagan worship".[15] Towards the end of the 4th century Theodosius worked to establish Catholicism as the privileged religion in the Roman Empire."Theodosius was not the man to sympathise with the balancing policy of the Edict of Milan. He set himself steadfastly to the work of establishing Catholicism as the privileged religion of the state, of repressing dissident Christians (heretics) and of enacting explicit legal measures to abolish Paganism in all its phases."[16]
Two hundred and fifty years after Constantine was converted and began the long campaign of official temple destruction and outlawing of non-Christian worship Justinian was still engaged in the war of dissent.[17]
The Augustinian consensus[edit]
The transformation that happened in the 4th century lies at the heart of the debate between those Christian authors who advocated religious persecution and those who rejected it.[15] Most of all, the advocates of persecution looked to the writings of Augustine of Hippo,[15] the most influential of the Christian Church Fathers in the Latin West.[18] Initially (in the 390s), he had been sceptical about the use of coercion in religious matters. However, he changed his mind after he had witnessed how the Donatists (a schismatic Christian sect) were "brought over to the Catholic unity by fear of imperial edicts." When Augustine had characterized himself in De utilitate credenti (392), he said he was cupidus veri, eager for truth.[19] But in his 93. letter he described himself as quietis avidus, needing rest, and gave as reason the agitating Donatist.[19] From a position that had trusted the power of philosophical argumentation, Augustine had moved to a position that emphasised the authority of the church.[19] Augustine had become convinced of the effectiveness of mild forms of persecution and developed a defence of their use. His authority on this question was undisputed for over a millennium in Western Christianity.[15] Within this Augustinian consensus there was only disagreement about the extent to which Christians should persecute heretics. Augustine advocated fines, imprisonment, banishment and moderate floggings, but, according to Henry Chadwick, "would have been horrified by the burning of heretics."[20] In late Antiquity those burnings appear very rare indeed, the only certain case being the execution of Priscillian and six of his followers in 385. This sentence was roundly condemned by bishops like Ambrose, Augustine's mentor.[21]
The treatment of heretics[edit]
Further information: Christian heresy
With the adoption of Christianity by Constantine I (after Battle of Milvian Bridge, 312), heresy had become a political issue in the late Roman empire. Adherents of unconventional Christian beliefs not covered by the Nicene Creed like Novatianism and Gnosticism were banned from holding meetings,[15] but the Roman emperor intervened especially in the conflict between orthodox and Arian Christianity, which resulted in the burning of Arian books.[15]
In contrast to the late antiquity, the execution of heretics was much more easily approved in the late Middle Ages, after the Christianization of Europe was largely completed. The first known case is the burning of fourteen people at Orléans in 1022.[21] In the following centuries groups like the Bogomils, Waldensians, Cathars and Lollards were persecuted throughout Europe. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) codified the theory and practise of persecution.[21] In its third canon, the council declared: "Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, .. to take an oath that they will strive .. to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church."[22]
Saint Thomas Aquinas summed up the standard medieval position, when he declared that that obstinate heretics deserved "not only to be separated from the Church, but also to be eliminated from the world by death" [23]
The Old Testament has been the main source for Christian theologians advocating religious persecution. An example of this would be John Jewel. In defending the demand for religious uniformity by Elizabeth I of England, he declared: "Queen Elizabeth doth as did Moses, Josua, David, Salomon, Josias, Jesophat, ..." [24]
The Protestant theory of persecution[edit]
The Protestant Reformation changed the face of Western Christianity forever, but initially it did nothing to change the Christian endorsement of religious persecution. The Reformers "fully embraced" Augustine's advocacy of coercion in religious matters, and many regarded the death penalty for heresy as legitimate.[21] Furthermore, by presenting a much more powerful threat to Catholic unity than the heretic groups of the Middle Ages, the Reformation led to the intensification of persecution under Catholic regimes.
Martin Luther had written against persecution in the 1520s, and had demonstrated genuine sympathy towards the Jews in his earlier writings, especially in Das Jesus ein geborener Jude sei (That Jesus was born as a Jew) from 1523, but after 1525 his position hardened. In Wider die Sabbather an einen guten Freund (Against the Sabbather to a Good Friend), 1538, he still considered a conversion of the Jews to Christianity as possible,[25] but in 1543 he published On the Jews and their Lies, a "violent anti-semitic tract."[26]
John Calvin helped to secure the execution for heresy of Michael Servetus,[27] although he unsuccessfully requested that he should be beheaded instead of being burned at the stake.
Effectively, however, the 16th-century Protestant view was less extreme than the mediaeval Catholic position. In England, John Foxe, John Hales, Richard Perrinchief, Herbert Thorndike and Jonas Proast all only saw mild forms of persecution against the English Dissenters as legitimate.[28] But (with the probable exception of John Foxe), this was only a retraction in degree, not a full rejection of religious persecution. There is also the crucial distinction between dissent and heresy to consider. Most dissenters disagreed with the Anglican Church only on secondary matters of worship and ecclesiology, and although this was a considered a serious sin, only a few 17th-century Anglican writers thought that this 'crime' deserved the death penalty.[29]
The Elizabethan bishop Thomas Bilson was of the opinion that men ought to be "corrected, not murdered", but he did not condemn the Christian Emperors for executing the Manichaeans for "monstrous blasphemies".[30] The Lutheran theologian Georgius Calixtus argued for the reconciliation of Christendom by removing all unimportant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and Rupertus Meldenius advocated in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion) in 1626.[31]
Protestant advocacy for toleration[edit]
The English Protestant 'Call for Toleration'[edit]
While the Christian theologians mentioned above advocated religious persecution to various extents, it was also Christians who helped pioneer the concept of religious toleration.
In his book on 'The English Reformation', particularly in the chapter 'The Origins of Religious Toleration', the late A. G. Dickens argued that from the beginning of the Reformation there had "existed in Protestant thought – in Zwingli, Melanchthon and Bucer, as well as among the Anabaptists – a more liberal tradition, which John Frith was perhaps the first echo in England".[32] Condemned for heresy, Frith was burnt at the stake in 1533. In his own mind, he died not because of the denial of the doctrines on purgatory and transubstantiation but "for the principle that a particular doctrine on either point was not a necessary part of a Christian's faith".[33] In other words, there was an important distinction to be made between a genuine article of faith and other matters where a variety of very different conclusions should be tolerated within the Church. This stand against unreasonable and profligate dogmatism meant that Frith, "to a greater extent than any other of our early Protestants", upheld "a certain degree of religious freedom".[33]
Frith was not alone. John Foxe, for example, "strove hard to save Anabaptists from the fire, and he enunciated a sweeping doctrine of tolerance even towards Catholics, whose doctrines he detested with every fibre of his being".[34]
In the early 17th century, Thomas Helwys was principal formulator of that distinctively Baptist request: that the church and the state be kept separate in matters of law, so that individuals might have a freedom of religious conscience. Helwys said the King "is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them".[35] King James I had Helwys thrown into Newgate prison, where he had died by 1616 at about the age of forty.
By the time of the English Revolution Helwys' stance on religious toleration was more commonplace. However, whilst accepting their zeal in desiring a 'godly society', some contemporary historians doubt whether the English Puritans during the English Revolution were as committed to religious liberty and pluralism as traditional histories have suggested. However, historian John Coffey's recent work[36] emphasises the contribution of a minority of radical Protestants who steadfastly sought toleration for heresy, blasphemy, Catholicism, non-Christian religions, and even atheism. This minority included the Seekers, as well as the General Baptists and the Levellers. Their collective witness demanded the church be an entirely voluntary, non-coercive community able to evangelise in a pluralistic society governed by a purely civil state. Such a demand was in sharp contrast to the ambitions of the magisterial Protestantism of the Calvinist majority.
In 1644 the "Augustinian consensus concerning persecution was irreparably fractured."[37] This year can be identified quite exactly, because 1644 saw the publication of John Milton's Areopagitica, William Walwyn's The Compassionate Samaritane, Henry Robinson's Liberty of Conscience and Roger William's The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution. These authors were Puritans or had dissented from the Church of England, and their radical Protestantism led them to condemn religious persecution, which they saw as a popish corruption of primitive Christianity.[38] Other non-Anglican writers advocating toleration were Richard Overton, John Wildman and John Goodwin, the Baptists Samuel Richardson and Thomas Collier and the Quakers Samuel Fisher and William Penn. Anglicans who argued against persecution were: John Locke, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, James Harrington, Jeremy Taylor, Henry More, John Tillotson and Gilbert Burnet.[39]
All of these considered themselves Christians or were actual churchmen. John Milton and John Locke are the predecessors of modern liberalism. Although Milton was a Puritan and Locke an Anglican, Areopagitica and A Letter concerning Toleration are canonical liberal texts.[40] Only from the 1690s onwards the philosophy of Deism emerged, and with it a third group that advocated religious toleration, but, unlike the radical Protestants and the Anglicans, also rejected biblical authority; this group prominently includes Voltaire, Frederick II of Prussia, Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, Thomas Jefferson and the English-Irish philosopher John Toland.[38] When Toland published the writings of Milton, Edmund Ludlow and Algernon Sidney, he tried to downplay the Puritan divinity in these works.[41]
The Holy Roman Emperor, Joseph II, issued the Patent of Toleration in 1781.
Developments in 17th-century England[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (July 2009)
Following the debates that started in the 1640s the Church of England was the first Christian church to grant adherents of other Christian denominations freedom of worship, with the Act of Toleration 1689, which nevertheless still retained some forms of religious discrimination and did not include toleration for Catholics. At present, only individuals who are members of the Church of England at the time of the succession may become the British monarch.
In the United States[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (October 2012)
Main article: Freedom of religion in the United States
The Puritan-Whig tradition of toleration did have their greatest effect not in England, but in the Thirteen Colonies that would later form the United States.[41] Notable tolerationists were directly involved in the founding of the colonies. Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island, "a haven for persecuted minorities,"[41] John Locke drafted the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina and William Penn drew up the constitution of Pennsylvania. Voltaire pointed the readers of his Traité sur la Tolérance (1763) specifically to the examples of Carolina and Pennsylvania.[41] People like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams stood self-consciously in the tradition of Milton, Sidney and Locke, and extended their tolerationism further to also apply to Catholics and atheists.[42] Coffey considers it possible to argue, "that the tolerationist tradition of seventeenth-century England reached its fulfilment in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and the First Amendment to the American Constitution."[42]
That the North American colonies and later the United States provided a refuge for religious minorities from Europe partly explains the higher degree of religiosity in the contemporary United States and the "unusual sectarian quality of U.S. Protestantism".[43] Compared to Europe, "the United States has a superabundance of denominations and sects (...) as well as a far higher ratio of churchgoers."[44] Which importance the Christian religion should have in the United States, with its strong concept of Separation of church and state, is a contentious question. For Kevin Phillips, who wrote a book with the polemical title American Theocracy, "few questions will be more important to the twenty-first-century United States than whether renascent religion and its accompanying hubris will be carried on the nation's books as an asset or as a liability."[45]
According to a 2008 survey, 65% of US-American Christians believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.[46] 52% of US-American Christians think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life.[46]
(At its surface, the percentages above seem contradictory; the key is in the appellation of the term non-Christian in the second, lesser quantity. For some Christians, different sects of Christianity represent "different religions." These people thus mistake the survey term "many religions" to mean "different sects of Christianity," even though that is not the common intended use of the phrase. What the survey really shows is that more US Christians believe that God can make himself known through multiple Christian sects, than believe that He can make Himself known even through other religions. It is worth noting that a majority of US Christians take the more inclusive stance.)
The mid-20th-century Spanish model[edit]
As of the mid-20th century, an example of Catholic church-state relations was the Catholic situation in Franco's Spain, where under the National Catholicism doctrine the Catholic Church:
was officially recognized and protected by the state,
had substantial control over social policy, and
had this relationship explicitly set out in a Concordat.
It had long been the policy of the Catholic Church to support toleration of competing religions under such a scheme, but to support legal restrictions on attempts to convert Catholics to those religions, under the motto that "error has no rights".[citation needed]
Modern Roman Catholic policy[edit]
On the seventh of December 1965 The Catholic Church as part of the Vatican II council issued the decree "Dignitatis humanae" that dealt with the rights of the person and communities to social and civil liberty in religious matters. It states: "2. The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or public, alone or in associations with others. The Vatican Council further declares that the right of religious freedom is based on the very word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civic right...but if it [the civil authority] presumes to control or restrict religious activity it must be said to have exceeded the limits of its power...Therefore, provided the just requirements of public order are not violated, these groups [i.e. religious communities] have a right to immunity so that they may organize their own lives according to their religious principles...From this it follows that it is wrong for a public authority to compel its citizens by force or fear or any other means to profess or repudiate any religion or to prevent anyone from joining or leaving a religious body. There is even more serious transgression of God's will and of the sacred rights of the individual person and the family of nations when force is applied to wipe out or repress religion either throughout the whole world or in a single region or in a particular community".[47]
On 12 March 2000 Pope John Paul II prayed for forgiveness because "Christians have often denied the Gospel; yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions" [48]
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) wrote "The quality of exemplarity which the honest admission of past faults can exert on attitudes within the Church and civil society should also be noted, for it gives rise to a renewed obedience to the Truth and to respect for the dignity and the rights of others, most especially, of the very weak. In this sense, the numerous requests for forgiveness formulated by John Paul II constitute an example that draws attention to something good and stimulates the imitation of it, recalling individuals and groups of people to an honest and fruitful examination of conscience with a view to reconciliation"[49]
See also[edit]
Blood libel against Jews
Boxer Rebellion
Caucasian War
Marrano
Expulsion of Moriscos
Colonialism European colonization of the Americas
Criticisms of Christianity
Iconoclasm
Arianism
Saxon Wars
Sack of Magdeburg
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
Missions Indian boarding school
Missionaries in India
Dominionism
Theocracy
 Persecution of Ancient Greek religion History of the Jews in Spain
Taiping Rebellion
Witch-hunt Salem witch trials
Germanic Christianity
Christianization of Scandinavia
Baptism of Poland
Christianization of Kievan Rus'
Pagan reaction in Poland
Constantine I and Christianity
Crusades
First Crusade Northern Crusades
Albigensian Crusade
Anti-Hussite Crusade
Christian terrorism
Totalism
 Persecution of Muslims
Persecution of Atheists
Christianization
Conquistador
Santería
Spanish Inquisition
Portuguese Inquisition Goa Inquisition
Medieval Inquisition Waldensians
Lollardy
Catharism
Ku Klux Klan
New Christian
Public Worship Regulation Act 1874
Religious discrimination against Neopagans
Universalism
History of Christian theology

Literature[edit]
John Coffey (2000), Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History, Pearson Education
Ramsay MacMullen, "Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D.100-400, Yale University Press, 1984, ISBN 0-300-03642-6
Ramsay MacMullen, "Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries", Yale University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-300-07148-5
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 206.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Coffey 2000: 23
3.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 22
4.Jump up ^ Lutz E. von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mitterlalter, Reclam (German), p. 183
5.Jump up ^ Lapidus, Ira M. (1988). A History of Islamic societes. Cambridge University Press. p. 389. ISBN 0-521-22552-3.
6.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 212
7.Jump up ^ Barbara Larkin (editor). International Religious Freedom (2000): Report to Congress by the Department of State. ISBN 0-7567-1229-7.
8.^ Jump up to: a b c MacMullan 1984:49.
9.Jump up ^ quoted after MacMullan 1984:49.
10.Jump up ^ MacMullan 1984:50.
11.Jump up ^ MacMullan 1984: 141, Note 35 to Chapter V; Theophanes, Chron. a. 322 (PG 108.117)
12.Jump up ^ MacMullan 1984:96.
13.Jump up ^ "A History of the Church", Philip Hughes, Sheed & Ward, rev ed 1949, vol I chapter 6.[1]
14.Jump up ^ C. G. Herbermann & Georg Grupp, "Constantine the Great", Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, New Advent web site.
15.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Coffey 2000:22.
16.Jump up ^ "Studies in Comparative Religion, "The Conversion of the Roman Empire, Philip Hughes, Vol 3, CTS.
17.Jump up ^ R. MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries, P151, ISBN 0-300-07148-5
18.Jump up ^ Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, ed. by Johannes van Oort et al., 2001, back cover
19.^ Jump up to: a b c Kurt Flasch: Augustin - Einführung in sein Denken (German), 3. ed., Reclam, 2003, p.168
20.Jump up ^ quoted after Coffey 2000: 23.
21.^ Jump up to: a b c d Coffey 2000:23.
22.Jump up ^ Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215
23.Jump up ^ Auqinas, Summa Theologica, quoted after Aquinas, Selected Political Writings (Oxford, 1959), p.77
24.Jump up ^ John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.31
25.Jump up ^ Thomas Kaufmann, 2005: Luthers "Judenschriften in ihren historischen Kontexten (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen) (German), p. 526
26.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 23, 24
27.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 24.
28.Jump up ^ see Coffey 2000: 24,25.
29.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 25
30.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 24,26; Thomas Bilson 1585, The True Difference between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion, pp. 19,20, 383.
31.Jump up ^ German Wikipedia: Rupertus Meldenius
32.Jump up ^ Dickens, A.G. (1978). 'The English Reformation'. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 438.;
33.^ Jump up to: a b Dickens, A.G. (1978). 'The English Reformation'. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 116.;
34.Jump up ^ Dickens, A.G. (1978). 'The English Reformation'. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. pp. 439–440.;
35.Jump up ^ Helwys, Thomas (1612). ‘A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity’.;
36.Jump up ^ Coffey, John (1998) "Puritanism & Liberty Revisited: The Case for Toleration in the English Revolution", The Historical Journal, Cambridge University Press.
37.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 47.
38.^ Jump up to: a b Coffey 2000: 50.
39.Jump up ^ This list is taken from: Coffey (2000), 50
40.Jump up ^ Coffey 2000: 206; A. Patterson, Early Modern Liberalism, Cambridge 1997
41.^ Jump up to: a b c d Coffey 2000: 207.
42.^ Jump up to: a b Coffey 2000: 208.
43.Jump up ^ Kevin Phillips (2006): American Theocracy. The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. p. 104
44.Jump up ^ Kevin Phillips (2006): 105.
45.Jump up ^ Kevin Phillips (2006): 99.
46.^ Jump up to: a b PEW Forum, Dec. 18, 2008: Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life
47.Jump up ^ Austin Flannery (General Editor), Vatican Council II - The Conciliar and Post Concilliar Documents, 1981 Edition
48.Jump up ^ "POPE JOHN PAUL II ASKS FOR FORGIVENESS", (MARCH 12, 2000), fetched 16th April 2007 [2]
49.Jump up ^ "Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "MEMORY AND RECONCILIATION: THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST", International Theological Commission held in Rome from 1998 to 1999, fetched 17 April 2008 [3]
Further reading[edit]
John Courtney Murray; J. Leon Hooper (1993). Religious Liberty: Catholic Struggles With Pluralism. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-25360-8.
Robert P. Geraci; Michael Khodarkovsky (2001). Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-3327-6.
Ole Peter Grell; Bob Scribner (2002). Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89412-8.
R. Po-Chia Hsia; Henk Van Nierop (2002). Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80682-4.
Chris Beneke (2006): Beyond toleration. the religious origins of American pluralism, Oxford University Press
Alexandra Walsham (2006): Charitable hatred. Tolerance and intolerance in England, 1500 - 1700, Manchester University Press
Hans Erich Bödeker; Clorinda Donato; Peter Reill (2008). Discourses of Tolerance & Intolerance in the European Enlightenment. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-9136-0.
C. Scott Dixon; Dagmar Freist; Mark Greengrass (2009). Living With Religious Diversity in Early-Modern Europe. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6668-4.
Adam Wolfson (2010). Persecution or Toleration: An Explication of the Locke-Proast Quarrel, 1689-1704. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-4724-5.
John Corrigan; Lynn S. Neal (2010). Religious Intolerance in America: A Documentary History. Univ of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3389-6.
John Laursen; Cary Nederman (2011). Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-1567-0.
Chris Beneke; Christopher Grenda (2011). The First Prejudice: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Early America. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-4270-6.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious persecution and discrimination





























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity



























The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea























































































































































































































  


Categories: Religious persecution
Persecution by Christians
History of Christianity











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
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 April 2015, at 07:19.
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/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance








Freedom of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Freedom of worship" and "Freedom to Worship" redirect here. For the 1943 painting/poster, see Freedom to Worship (painting).

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group—in religious terms called "apostasy"—is also a fundamental[peacock term] part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2]
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right.[3][4] In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths.


Contents  [hide]
1 History 1.1 Muslim world
1.2 India
1.3 Europe 1.3.1 Religious intolerance
1.3.2 Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance
1.3.3 Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom 1.3.3.1 Poland

1.4 United States
1.5 Canada
1.6 International
2 Contemporary debates 2.1 Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs
2.2 Liberal secular
2.3 Hinduism
2.4 Judaism
2.5 Christianity
2.6 Islam
2.7 Changing religion 2.7.1 Apostasy in Islam
2.8 Secular law
3 Children's rights
4 International Religious Freedom Day
5 Modern concerns 5.1 Social hostilities and government restrictions
6 See also 6.1 Lawsuits
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

History[edit]

Text document with red question mark.svg
 This section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (help, talk, get involved!) (September 2010)



Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)
Historically, freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has also often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally "protected individuals" professing an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion.



 The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.
In Antiquity, a syncretic point of view often allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs. When street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was generally perceived to be an infringement of community rights.
Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder.[5][6]
Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of power: Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. Others have been where the established order has felt threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 399 BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, and refusal to offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance. This was the core for resentment and the persecution of early Christian communities.
Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.
Greek-Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 73 AD and 117 AD and in Alexandria in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult.
Muslim world[edit]
Following a period of fighting lasting around a hundred years before 620 AD which mainly involved Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Medina (then known as Yathrib), religious freedom for Muslims, Jews and pagans were declared by Muhammad in the Constitution of Medina. The Islamic Caliphate later guaranteed religious freedom under the conditions that non-Muslim communities accept dhimmi (second class) status and their adult males pay the jizya tax as a substitute for the zakat paid by Muslim citizens.[7][8]
Religious pluralism existed in classical Islamic ethics and Sharia law, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, and the Ottoman Millet system.[9][10] In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judges) usually could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts.[11]
Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order.[12] Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in religious practices that was usually forbidden by Islamic law, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork, as well as religious practices which Muslims found repugnant, such as the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292–1350), non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion.[13]
India[edit]
Main article: Freedom of religion in India
Religious freedom and the right to worship freely were practices that had been appreciated and promoted by most ancient Indian dynasties.[citation needed] As a result, people fleeing religious persecution in other parts of the world including Christians, Jews, Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrians fled to India as a place of refuge to enjoy religious freedom.[14][15][16]
Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,500 years ago settled in India and never faced anti-Semitism.[17] Freedom of religion edicts have been found written during Ashoka the Great's reign in the 3rd century BC. Freedom to practise, preach and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Modern India. Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in the list of national holidays.
Although India is an 80% Hindu country, three out of the twelve presidents of India have been Muslims.
Many scholars and intellectuals believe that India's predominant religion, Hinduism, has long been a most tolerant religion.[18] Rajni Kothari, founder of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies has written, "[India] is a country built on the foundations of a civilisation that is fundamentally non-religious."[19]
The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader in exile said that religious tolerance of 'Aryabhoomi,' a reference to India found in Mahabharata, has been in existence in this country from thousands of years. "Not only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism which are the native religions but also Christianity and Islam have flourished here. Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition," the Dalai Lama said.[20]
Freedom of religion in the Indian subcontinent is exemplified by the reign of King Piyadasi (304 BC to 232 BC) (Ashoka). One of King Ashoka's main concerns was to reform governmental institutes and exercise moral principles in his attempt to create a just and humane society. Later he promoted the principles of Buddhism, and the creation of a just, understanding and fair society was held as an important principle for many ancient rulers of this time in the East.
The importance of freedom of worship in India was encapsulated in an inscription of Ashoka:

King Piyadasi (Ashok) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways. But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them. For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech. That is to say, one must not exalt one's creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.
The initial entry of Islam into South Asia came in the first century after the death of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. When around 1210 AD the Islamic Sultanates invaded India from the north-west, gradually the principle of freedom of religion deteriorated in this part of the world. They were subsequently replaced by another Islamic invader in the form of Babur. The Mughal empire was founded by the Mongol leader Babur in 1526, when he defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Delhi Sultans at the First Battle of Panipat. The word "Mughal" is the Indo-Iranian version of Mongol.
On the main Asian continent, the Mongols were tolerant of religions. People could worship as they wished freely and openly, though the formation of 2 nations i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh has been on basis of religious intolerance.
After arrival of Europeans, Christians in zeal to convert local as per belief in conversion as service of God, have also been seen to fall into frivolous methods since their arrival. Though by and large there are hardly any reports of law and order disturbance from mobs with Christian beliefs except perhaps in the north eastern region of India.[21]
Freedom of religion in contemporary India is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the nation's constitution. Accordingly every citizen of India has a right to profess, practice and propagate their religions peacefully.[22] Vishwa Hindu Parishad counters this argument by saying that evangelical Christians are forcefully (or through money) converting rural, illiterate populations and they are only trying to stop this.
In September 2010, Indian state Kerala's State Election Commissioner announced that "Religious heads cannot issue calls to vote for members of a particular community or to defeat the nonbelievers".[23] The Catholic Church comprising Latin, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rites used to give clear directions to the faithful on exercising their franchise during elections through pastoral letters issued by bishops or council of bishops. The pastoral letter issued by Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) on the eve of the poll urged the faithful to shun atheists.[23]
Even today, most Indians celebrate all religious festivals with equal enthusiasm and respect. Hindu festivals like Deepavali and Holi, Muslim festivals like Eid al-Fitr, Eid-Ul-Adha, Muharram, Christian festivals like Christmas and other festivals like Buddha Purnima, Mahavir Jayanti, Gur Purab etc. are celebrated and enjoyed by all Indians.
Europe[edit]
Religious intolerance[edit]
Most Roman Catholic kingdoms kept a tight rein on religious expression throughout the Middle Ages. Jews were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the most notable examples of the latter being the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492. Some of those who remained and converted were tried as heretics in the Inquisition for allegedly practicing Judaism in secret. Despite the persecution of Jews, they were the most tolerated non-Catholic faith in Europe.
However, the latter was in part a reaction to the growing movement that became the Reformation. As early as 1380, John Wycliffe in England denied transubstantiation and began his translation of the Bible into English. He was condemned in a Papal Bull in 1410, and all his books were burned.
In 1414, Jan Hus, a Bohemian preacher of reformation, was given a safe conduct by the Holy Roman Emperor to attend the Council of Constance. Not entirely trusting in his safety, he made his will before he left. His forebodings proved accurate, and he was burned at the stake on 6 July 1415. The Council also decreed that Wycliffe's remains be disinterred and cast out. This decree was not carried out until 1429.
After the fall of the city of Granada, Spain, in 1492, the Muslim population was promised religious freedom by the Treaty of Granada, but that promise was short-lived. In 1501, Granada's Muslims were given an ultimatum to either convert to Christianity or to emigrate. The majority converted, but only superficially, continuing to dress and speak as they had before and to secretly practice Islam. The Moriscos (converts to Christianity) were ultimately expelled from Spain between 1609 (Castile) and 1614 (rest of Spain), by Philip III.
Martin Luther published his famous 95 Theses in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. His major aim was theological, summed up in the three basic dogmas of Protestantism:
The Bible only is infallible
Every Christian can interpret it
Human sins are so wrongful that no deed or merit, only God's grace, can lead to salvation.
In consequence, Luther hoped to stop the sale of indulgences and to reform the Church from within. In 1521, he was given the chance to recant at the Diet of Worms before Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, then only 19. After he refused to recant, he was declared heretic. Partly for his own protection, he was sequestered on the Wartburg in the possessions of Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, where he translated the New Testament into German. He was excommunicated by Papal Bull in 1521.
However, the movement continued to gain ground in his absence and spread to Switzerland. Huldrych Zwingli preached reform in Zürich from 1520 to 1523. He opposed the sale of indulgences, celibacy, pilgrimages, pictures, statues, relics, altars, and organs. This culminated in outright war between the Swiss cantons that accepted Protestantism and the Catholics. The Catholics were victorious, and Zwingli was killed in battle in 1531. The Catholic cantons were magnanimous in victory.[citation needed]
The defiance of Papal authority proved contagious, and in 1533, when Henry VIII of England was excommunicated for his divorce and remarriage to Anne Boleyn, he promptly established a state church with bishops appointed by the crown. This was not without internal opposition, and Thomas More, who had been his Lord Chancellor, was executed in 1535 for opposition to Henry.
In 1535, the Swiss canton of Geneva became Protestant. In 1536, the Bernese imposed the reformation on the canton of Vaud by conquest. They sacked the cathedral in Lausanne and destroyed all its art and statuary. John Calvin, who had been active in Geneva was expelled in 1538 in a power struggle, but he was invited back in 1540.



 A US Postage Stamp commemorating religious freedom and the Flushing Remonstrance.
The same kind of seesaw back and forth between Protestantism and Catholicism was evident in England when Mary I of England returned that country briefly to the Catholic fold in 1553 and persecuted Protestants. However, her half-sister, Elizabeth I of England was to restore the Church of England in 1558, this time permanently, and began to persecute Catholics again. The King James Bible commissioned by King James I of England and published in 1611 proved a landmark for Protestant worship, with official Catholic forms of worship being banned.
In France, although peace was made between Protestants and Catholics at the Treaty of Saint Germain in 1570, persecution continued, most notably in the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day on 24 August 1572, in which thousands of Protestants throughout France were killed. A few years before, at the "Michelade" of Nîmes in 1567, Protestants had massacred the local Catholic clergy.
Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance[edit]



 The cross of the war memorial and a menorah coexist in Oxford, Oxfordshire, England.
The Norman Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II was characterized by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance. Normans, Jews, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Lombards, and native Sicilians lived in harmony.[24][25][not in citation given] Rather than exterminate the Muslims of Sicily, Roger II's grandson Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1215—1250) allowed them to settle on the mainland and build mosques. Not least, he enlisted them in his – Christian – army and even into his personal bodyguards[26][need quotation to verify][27][need quotation to verify]
Bohemia (present-day Czech Republic) enjoyed religious freedom between 1436 and 1520, and became one of the most liberal countries of the Christian world during that period of time. The so-called Basel Compacts of 1436 declared the freedom of religion and peace between Catholics and Utraquists. In 1609 Emperor Rudolf II granted Bohemia greater religious liberty with his Letter of Majesty. The privileged position of the Catholic Church in the Czech kingdom was firmly established after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. Gradually freedom of religion in Bohemian lands came to an end and Protestants fled or were expelled from the country. A devout Catholic, Emperor Ferdinand II forcibly converted Austrian and Bohemian Protestants.[citation needed]
In the meantime, in Germany Philip Melanchthon drafted the Augsburg Confession as a common confession for the Lutherans and the free territories. It was presented to Charles V in 1530.
In the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V agreed to tolerate Lutheranism in 1555 at the Peace of Augsburg. Each state was to take the religion of its prince, but within those states, there was not necessarily religious tolerance. Citizens of other faiths could relocate to a more hospitable environment.
In France, from the 1550s, many attempts to reconcile Catholics and Protestants and to establish tolerance failed because the State was too weak to enforce them. It took the victory of prince Henry IV of France, who had converted into Protestantism, and his accession to the throne, to impose religious tolerance formalized in the Edict of Nantes in 1598. It would remain in force for over 80 years until its revocation in 1685 by Louis XIV of France. Intolerance remained the norm until Louis XVI, who signed the Edict of Versailles (1787), then the constitutional text of 24 December 1789, granting civilian rights to Protestants. The French Revolution then abolished state religion and confiscated all Church property, turning intolerance against Catholics.[citation needed]
Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom[edit]
In 1558, the Transylvanian Diet of Torda declared free practice of both the Catholic and Lutheran religions, but prohibited Calvinism. Ten years later, in 1568, the Diet extended the freedom to all religions, declaring that "It is not allowed to anybody to intimidate anybody with captivity or expelling for his religion". However, it was more than a religious tolerance, it declared the equality of the religions. The emergence in social hierarchy wasn't depend on the religion of the person thus Transylvania had also Catholic and Protestant monarchs (Princes). The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe. Therefore, the Edict of Torda is considered by mostly Hungarian historians as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe.

ACT OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:
His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearings is by the word of God.
— Diet at Torda, 1568 : King John Sigismund[28]
In the Union of Utrecht (20 January 1579), personal freedom of religion was declared in the struggle between the Northern Netherlands and Spain. The Union of Utrecht was an important step in the establishment of the Dutch Republic (from 1581 to 1795). Under Calvinist leadership, the Netherlands became the most tolerant country in Europe. It granted asylum to persecuted religious minorities, e.g. French Huguenots, English Dissenters, and Jews who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal.[29] The establishment of a Jewish community in the Netherlands and New Amsterdam (present-day New York) during the Dutch Republic is an example of religious freedom. When New Amsterdam surrendered to the English in 1664, freedom of religion was guaranteed in the Articles of Capitulation. It benefitted also the Jews who had landed on Manhattan Island in 1654, fleeing Portuguese persecution in Brazil. During the 18th century, other Jewish communities were established at Newport, Rhode Island, Philadelphia, Charleston, Savannah, and Richmond.[30]
Intolerance of dissident forms of Protestantism also continued, as evidenced by the exodus of the Pilgrims, who sought refuge, first in the Netherlands, and ultimately in America, founding Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts in 1620. William Penn, the founder of Philadelphia, was involved in a case which had a profound effect upon future American laws and those of England. In a classic case of jury nullification the jury refused to convict William Penn of preaching a Quaker sermon, which was illegal. Even though the jury was imprisoned for their acquittal, they stood by their decision and helped establish the freedom of religion.
Poland[edit]
Main article: Warsaw Confederation



 Original act of the Warsaw Confederation 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Poland has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in Poland in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. Poland kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[31]
The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Boleslaus the Pious on 8 September 1264 in Kalisz. The statute served as the basis for the legal position of Jews in Poland and led to creation of the Yiddish-speaking autonomous Jewish nation until 1795. The statute granted exclusive jurisdiction of Jewish courts over Jewish matters and established a separate tribunal for matters involving Christians and Jews. Additionally, it guaranteed personal liberties and safety for Jews including freedom of religion, travel, and trade. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III of Poland in 1334, Casimir IV of Poland in 1453 and Sigismund I of Poland in 1539. The Commonwealth set a precedent by allowing Jews to become ennobled.
United States[edit]
See also: Freedom of religion in the United States
Most of the early colonies were generally not tolerant of dissident forms of worship, with Maryland being one of the exceptions. For example, Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the most active of the New England persecutors of Quakers, and the persecuting spirit was shared by Plymouth Colony and the colonies along the Connecticut river.[32] In 1660, one of the most notable victims of the religious intolerance was English Quaker Mary Dyer, who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[32] As one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs, the hanging of Dyer on the Boston gallows marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan theocracy and New England independence from English rule, and in 1661 King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[33]
Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[34] Fifteen years later (1649), the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof." The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed during the Cromwellian Era with the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.[35] In 1657, the Catholic Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty years, until 1692[36] when, after Maryland's Protestant Revolution of 1689, freedom of religion was again rescinded.[34][37] In addition, in 1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.[37] Full religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until the American Revolution, when Maryland's Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the American Declaration of Independence.
Rhode Island (1636), Connecticut (1636), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (1682)—founded by Protestants Roger Williams, Thomas Hooker, and William Penn, respectively—combined the democratic form of government which had been developed by the Puritans and the Separatist Congregationalists in Massachusetts with religious freedom.[38][39][40][41] These colonies became sanctuaries for persecuted religious minorities. Catholics and later on Jews also had full citizenship and free exercise of their religions.[42][43][44] Williams, Hooker, Penn, and their friends were firmly convinced that freedom of conscience was the will of God. Williams gave the most profound argument: As faith is the free work of the Holy Spirit, it cannot be forced on a person. Therefore strict separation of church and state has to be kept.[45] Pennsylvania was the only colony that retained unlimited religious freedom until the foundation of the United States in 1776. It was the inseparable connection between democracy, religious freedom, and the other forms of freedom which became the political and legal basis of the new nation. In particular, Baptists and Presbyterians demanded the disestablishment of state churches - Anglican and Congregationalist - and the protection of religious freedom.[46]
Reiterating Maryland's and the other colonies' earlier colonial legislation, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The United States formally considers religious freedom in its foreign relations. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom which investigates the records of over 200 other nations with respect to religious freedom, and makes recommendations to submit nations with egregious records to ongoing scrutiny and possible economic sanctions. Many human rights organizations have urged the United States to be still more vigorous in imposing sanctions on countries that do not permit or tolerate religious freedom.
Canada[edit]
Further information: Freedom of religion in Canada
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. Canadian law goes further, requiring that private citizens and companies provide reasonable accommodation to those, for example, with strong religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights Act allows an exception to reasonable accommodation with respect to religious dress, such as a Sikh turban, when there is a bona fide occupational requirement, such as a workplace requiring a hard hat.[47]
International[edit]
On 25 November 1981, the United Nations General Assembly passed the "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". This declaration recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental human right in accordance with several other instruments of international law, but the international community has not passed any binding legal instruments that guarantee the right to freedom of religion.[48]
Contemporary debates[edit]

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs[edit]
In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief."[49] The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views." Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are still persecuted in many parts of the world.[50][51]
Within the United States, the Freedom From Religion Foundation argues that the United States Constitution not only prohibits the intrusion of religion into the processes of government, but also guarantees equal rights to citizens who choose not to follow any religion.[52] Conservative sociopolitical commentator Bryan Fischer has responded: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."[53]
Liberal secular[edit]

A man posing for a print

Adam Smith argued in favour of freedom of religion.
Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations (using an argument first put forward by his friend and contemporary David Hume), states that in the long run it is in the best interests of society as a whole and the civil magistrate (government) in particular to allow people to freely choose their own religion, as it helps prevent civil unrest and reduces intolerance. So long as there are enough different religions and/or religious sects operating freely in a society then they are all compelled to moderate their more controversial and violent teachings, so as to be more appealing to more people and so have an easier time attracting new converts. It is this free competition amongst religious sects for converts that ensures stability and tranquillity in the long run.
Smith also points out that laws that prevent religious freedom and seek to preserve the power and belief in a particular religion will, in the long run, only serve to weaken and corrupt that religion, as its leaders and preachers become complacent, disconnected and unpractised in their ability to seek and win over new converts:[54]

The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent, where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or, perhaps, into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which are so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects.[55]
Hinduism[edit]
Hinduism is one of the more open-minded religions when it comes to religious freedom.[56] It respects the right of everyone to reach God in their own way. Hindus believe in different ways to preach attainment of God and religion as a philosophy and hence respect all religions as equal. One of the famous Hindu sayings about religion is: "Truth is one; sages call it by different names."[56]
Judaism[edit]
Judaism includes multiple streams, such as Orthodox, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, Jewish Renewal and Humanistic Judaism. Israel, viewed as the Jewish homeland, has been evaluated in research by the Pew organization as having "high" government restrictions on religion. The government recognizes only Orthodox Judaism in certain matters of personal status, and marriages can only be performed by religious authorities. The government provides the greatest funding to Orthodox Judaism, even though adherents represent a minority of citizens.[57] Jewish women have been arrested at the Western Wall for praying and singing while wearing religious garments the Orthodox feel should be reserved for men. Women of the Wall have organized to promote religious freedom at the Wall.[58] In November 2014, a group of 60 non-Orthodox rabbinical students were told they would not be allowed to pray in the Knesset synagogue because it is reserved for Orthodox. Rabbi Joel Levy, director of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem, said that he had submitted the request on behalf of the students and saw their shock when the request was denied. He noted: "paradoxically, this decision served as an appropriate end to our conversation about religion and state in Israel." MK Dov Lipman expressed the concern that many Knesset workers are unfamiliar with non-Orthodox and American practices and would view "an egalitarian service in the synagogue as an affront."[59]
Christianity[edit]



 Part of the Oscar Straus Memorial in Washington, D.C. honoring the right to worship.
According to the Catholic Church in the Vatican II document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, "the human person has a right to religious freedom", which is described as "immunity from coercion in civil society".[60] This principle of religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion."[60] In addition, this right "is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."[60]
Prior to this, Pope Pius IX had written a document called the Syllabus of Errors. The Syllabus was made up of phrases and paraphrases from earlier papal documents, along with index references to them, and presented as a list of "condemned propositions". It does not explain why each particular proposition is wrong, but it cites earlier documents to which the reader can refer for the Pope's reasons for saying each proposition is false. Among the statements included in the Syllabus are: "[It is an error to say that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true" (15); "[It is an error to say that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" (77); "[It is an error to say that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship" (78).[61]
Some Orthodox Christians, especially those living in democratic countries, support religious freedom for all, as evidenced by the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many Protestant Christian churches, including some Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventist Church and main line churches have a commitment to religious freedoms. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also affirms religious freedom.[62]
However others, such as African scholar Makau Mutua, have argued that Christian insistence on the propagation of their faith to native cultures as an element of religious freedom has resulted in a corresponding denial of religious freedom to native traditions and led to their destruction. As he states in the book produced by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, "Imperial religions have necessarily violated individual conscience and the communal expressions of Africans and their communities by subverting African religions."[63][64]
In their book Breaking India, Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan discussed the "US Church" funding activities in India, such as the popularly advertised campaigns to "save" poor children by feeding, clothing, and educating them, with the book arguing that the funds collected were being used not so much for the purposes indicated to sponsors, but for indoctrination and conversion activities. They suggest that India is the prime target of a huge enterprise—a "network" of organizations, individuals, and churches—that, they argue, seem intensely devoted to the task of creating a separatist identity, history, and even religion for the vulnerable sections of India. They suggest that this nexus of players includes not only church groups, government bodies, and related organizations, but also private think tanks and academics.[65]
Joel Spring has written about the Christianization of the Roman Empire:

Christianity added new impetus to the expansion of empire. Increasing the arrogance of the imperial project, Christians insisted that the Gospels and the Church were the only valid sources of religious beliefs. Imperialists could claim that they were both civilizing the world and spreading the true religion. By the 5th century, Christianity was thought of as co-extensive with the Imperium romanum. This meant that to be human, as opposed to being a natural slave, was to be "civilized" and Christian. Historian Anthony Pagden argues, "just as the civitas; had now become coterminous with Christianity, so to be human—to be, that is, one who was 'civil', and who was able to interpret correctly the law of nature—one had now also to be Christian." After the fifteenth century, most Western colonialists rationalized the spread of empire with the belief that they were saving a barbaric and pagan world by spreading Christian civilization.[66]
Islam[edit]
Main articles: Political aspects of Islam, Sharia, Caliphate, Islamic religious police and Islamism
Conversion to Islam is simple (cf. shahada), but Muslims are forbidden to convert from Islam to another religion (cf. Apostasy in Islam). Certain Muslim-majority countries are known for their restrictions on religious freedom, highly favoring Muslim citizens over non-Muslim citizens. Other countries[who?] having the same restrictive laws tend to be more liberal when imposing them. Even other Muslim-majority countries are secular and thus do not regulate religious belief.[67][not in citation given]
Some Islamic theologians[who?] quote the Qur'an ("There is no compulsion in religion"[2:256] and "Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine"[109:1–6], i.e., Sura Al-Kafirun) to show scriptural support for religious freedom.
Quran 2:190–194, referring to the war against Pagans during the Battle of Badr in Medina, indicates that Muslims are only allowed to fight against those who intend to harm them (right of self-defense) and that if their enemies surrender, they must also stop because God does not like those who transgress limits.
In Bukhari:V9 N316, Jabir ibn 'Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin accepted Islam and then when he got a fever he demanded that Muhammad to cancel his pledge (allow him to renounce Islam). Muhammad refused to do so. The Bedouin man repeated his demand once, but Muhammad once again refused. Then, he (the Bedouin) left Medina. Muhammad said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good." In this narration, there was no evidence demonstrating that Muhammad ordered the execution of the Bedouin for wanting to renounce Islam.
In addition, Quran 5:3, which is believed to be God's final revelation to Muhammad, states that Muslims are to fear God and not those who reject Islam, and Quran 53:38–39 states that one is accountable only for one's own actions. Therefore, it postulates that in Islam, in the matters of practising a religion, it does not relate to a worldly punishment, but rather these actions are accountable to God in the afterlife. Thus, this supports the argument against the execution of apostates in Islam.[68]
However, on the other hand, some Muslims support the practice of executing apostates who leave Islam, as in Bukhari:V4 B52 N260; "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
In Iran, the constitution recognizes four religions whose status is formally protected: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[50] The constitution, however, also set the groundwork for the institutionalized persecution of Bahá'ís,[69] who have been subjected to arrests, beatings, executions, confiscation and destruction of property, and the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education.[50] There is no freedom of conscience in Iran, as converting from Islam to any other religion is forbidden.
In Egypt, a 16 December 2006 judgment of the Supreme Administrative Council created a clear demarcation between recognized religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – and all other religious beliefs;[70][71] no other religious affiliation is officially admissible.[72] The ruling leaves members of other religious communities, including Bahá'ís, without the ability to obtain the necessary government documents to have rights in their country, essentially denying them of all rights of citizenship.[72] They cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, and passports; they also cannot be employed, educated, treated in public hospitals or vote, among other things.[72] See Egyptian identification card controversy.
Changing religion[edit]
Main article: Religious conversion
Among the most contentious areas of religious freedom is the right of an individual to change or abandon his or her own religion (apostasy), and the right to evangelize individuals seeking to convince others to make such a change.
Other debates have centered around restricting certain kinds of missionary activity by religions. Many Islamic states, and others such as China, severely restrict missionary activities of other religions. Greece, among European countries, has generally looked unfavorably on missionary activities of denominations others than the majority church and proselytizing is constitutionally prohibited.[73]
A different kind of critique of the freedom to propagate religion has come from non-Abrahamic traditions such as the African and Indian. African scholar Makau Mutua criticizes religious evangelism on the ground of cultural annihilation by what he calls "proselytizing universalist faiths" (Chapter 28: Proselytism and Cultural Integrity, page 652):

...the (human) rights regime incorrectly assumes a level playing field by requiring that African religions compete in the marketplace of ideas. The rights corpus not only forcibly imposes on African religions the obligation to compete—a task for which as nonproselytizing, noncompetitive creeds they are not historically fashioned—but also protects the evangelizing religions in their march towards universalization ... it seems inconceivable that the human rights regime would have intended to protect the right of certain religions to destroy others.[74]
Some Indian scholars[75] have similarly argued that the right to propagate religion is not culturally or religiously neutral.
In Sri Lanka, there have been debates regarding a bill on religious freedom that seeks to protect indigenous religious traditions from certain kinds of missionary activities. Debates have also occurred in various states of India regarding similar laws, particularly those that restrict conversions using force, fraud or allurement.
In 2008, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a Christian human rights non-governmental organisation which specializes in religious freedom, launched an in-depth report on the human rights abuses faced by individuals who leave Islam for another religion. The report is the product of a year long research project in six different countries. It calls on Muslim nations, the international community, the UN and the international media to resolutely address the serious violations of human rights suffered by apostates.[76]
Apostasy in Islam[edit]
Main articles: Apostasy in Islam, Takfir and Mutaween



 Legal opinion on apostasy by the Fatwa committee at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the highest Islamic institution in the world, concerning the case of a man who converted to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."
In Islam, apostasy is called "ridda" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community).[77]
In Islamic law (Sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.[78]
Ideally, the one performing the execution of an apostate must be an imam.[78] At the same time, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that any Muslim can kill an apostate without punishment.[79]
However, while almost all scholars agree about the punishment, many disagree on the allowable time to retract the apostasy. Many scholars push this as far as allowing the apostate till he/she dies. Thus, practically making the death penalty just a theoretical statement/exercise.[citation needed] S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an.[80]
Secular law[edit]
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law, creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though polygamy is permitted in Islam, it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. This raises the question of whether prohibiting the practice infringes on the beliefs of certain Muslims. The US and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two different views of this. In India, polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under Muslim Personal Law. In the US, polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the early LDS Church and the United States until the Church amended its position on practicing polygamy.
Similar issues have also arisen in the context of the religious use of psychedelic substances by Native American tribes in the United States as well as other Native practices.
In 1955, Chief Justice of California Roger J. Traynor neatly summarized the American position on how freedom of religion cannot imply freedom from law: "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not."[81] But with respect to the religious use of animals within secular law and those acts, the US Supreme Court decision in the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual animal sacrifice, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision: "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection" (quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981)).[82]
Children's rights[edit]
The law in Germany provides the term of "religious majority" (Religiöse Mündigkeit) with a minimum age for minors to follow their own religious beliefs even if their parents don't share those or don't approve. Children 14 and older have the unrestricted right to enter or exit any religious community. Children 12 and older cannot be compelled to change to a different belief. Children 10 and older have to be heard before their parents change their religious upbringing to a different belief.[83] There are similar laws in Austria[84] and in Switzerland.[85]
International Religious Freedom Day[edit]
27 October is International Religious Freedom Day, in commemoration of the execution of the Boston martyrs for their religious convictions 1659–1661.[86] The US proclaimed 16 January Religious Freedom Day.[87]
Modern concerns[edit]
In its 2011 annual report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom designated fourteen nations as "countries of particular concern". The commission chairman commented that these are nations whose conduct marks them as the world's worst religious freedom violators and human rights abusers. The fourteen nations designated were Burma, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Other nations on the commission's watchlist include Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela.[88]
There are concerns about the restrictions on public religious dress in some European countries (including the Hijab, Kippah, and Christian cross).[89][90] Article 18 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights limits restrictions on freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs to those necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.[91] Freedom of religion as a legal concept is related to, but not identical with, religious toleration, separation of church and state, or secular state (laïcité).
Social hostilities and government restrictions[edit]



 Freedom of religion by country (Pew Research Center study, 2009). Light yellow: low restriction; red: very high restriction on freedom of religion.
The Pew Research Center has performed studies on international religious freedom between 2009 and 2015, compiling global data from 16 governmental and non-governmental organizations–including the United Nations, the United States State Department, and Human Rights Watch–and representing over 99.5 percent of the world's population.[92][93] In 2009, nearly 70 percent of the world's population lived in countries classified as having heavy restrictions on freedom of religion.[92][93] This concerns restrictions on religion originating from government prohibitions on free speech and religious expression as well as social hostilities undertaken by private individuals, organisations and social groups. Social hostilities were classified by the level of communal violence and religion-related terrorism.
While most countries provided for the protection of religious freedom in their constitutions or laws, only a quarter of those countries were found to fully respect these legal rights in practice. In 75 countries governments limit the efforts of religious groups to proselytise and in 178 countries religious groups must register with the government. In 2013, Pew classified 30% of countries as having restrictions that tend to target religious minorities, and 61% of countries have social hostilities that tend to target religious minorities.[94]
The countries in North and South America reportedly had some of the lowest levels of government and social restrictions on religion, while The Middle East and North Africa were the regions with the highest. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran were the countries that top the list of countries with the overall highest levels of restriction on religion. Topping the Pew government restrictions index were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, China, Egypt, Burma, Maldives, Eritrea, Malaysia and Brunei.
Of the world's 25 most populous countries, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan had the most restrictions, while Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa, the UK, and the US had some of the lowest levels, as measured by Pew.
Vietnam and China were classified as having high government restrictions on religion but were in the moderate or low range when it came to social hostilities. Nigeria, Bangladesh and India were high in social hostilities but moderate in terms of government actions.
Restrictions on religion across the world increased between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to a 2012 study by the Pew Research Center. Restrictions in each of the five major regions of the world increased—including in the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions where overall restrictions previously had been declining. In 2010, Egypt, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Russia, and Yemen were added to the "very high" category of social hostilities.[95] The five highest social hostility scores were for Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Bangladesh.[96] In 2015, Pew published that social hostilities declined in 2013, but Harassment of Jews increased.[94]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Human rights portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Adiaphora
Forum 18
Freedom of thought
International Association for Religious Freedom
International Center for Law and Religion Studies
International Coalition for Religious Freedom
International Religious Liberty Association
Missouri Executive Order 44
General Order No. 11 (1862)
North American Religious Liberty Association
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States
Religious discrimination
Status of religious freedom by country
Religious education in primary and secondary education
Witch-hunt
Witch trials in the early modern period
Lawsuits[edit]
C. H. v. Oliva et al.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.
2.Jump up ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". The United Nations.
3.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right". Archived from the original on 1 February 2008. Retrieved 5 December 2006. (archived from the original on 1 February 2008).
4.Jump up ^ Congressional Record #29734 – 19 November 2003. Google Books. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
5.Jump up ^ Cyrus Cylinder, livius.org.
6.Jump up ^ Richard A. Taylor; E. Ray Clendenen (15 October 2004). Haggai, Malachi. B&H Publishing Group. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-0-8054-0121-9.
7.Jump up ^ Natan, Yoel (2006). Moon-o-theism, Volume II of II. Yoel Natan. p. 514. ISBN 978-1-4392-9717-9.
8.Jump up ^ Njeuma, Martin Z. (2012). Fulani Hegemony in Yola (Old Adamawa) 1809-1902. African Books Collective. p. 82. ISBN 978-9956-726-95-0.
9.Jump up ^ (Weeramantry 1997, p. 138)[citation needed]
10.Jump up ^ Sachedina, Abdulaziz Abdulhussein (2001). The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513991-7.
11.Jump up ^ Mark R. Cohen (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p. 74. ISBN 0-691-01082-X. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
12.Jump up ^ al-Qattan, Najwa (1999). "Dhimmis in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination". International Journal of Middle East Studies (University of Cambridge) 31 (3): 429–444. doi:10.1017/S0020743800055501. ISSN 00207438.
13.Jump up ^ Sherman A. Jackson (2005). Islam and the Blackamerican: looking toward the third resurrection. Oxford University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0-19-518081-X. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
14.Jump up ^ The Last Jews of Kerala, p98
15.Jump up ^ Katz 2000; Koder 1973; Thomas Puthiakunnel 1973; David de Beth Hillel, 1832; Lord, James Henry 1977.
16.Jump up ^ Parsis#History
17.Jump up ^ Who are the Jews of India? – The S. Mark Taper Foundation imprint in Jewish studies. University of California Press. 2000. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-520-21323-4. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZWX6pF2PTJwC&pg=PA26.; "When the Portuguese arrived in 1498, they brought a spirit of intolerance utterly alien to India. They soon established an Office of Inquisition at Goa, and at their hands Indian Jews experienced the only instance of anti-Semitism ever to occur in Indian soil."
18.Jump up ^ David E. Ludden (1996). Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 257–258. ISBN 0-8122-1585-0.
19.Jump up ^ Rajni Kothari (1998). Communalism in Indian Politics. Rainbow Publishers. pp. 134. ISBN 978-81-86962-00-8.
20.Jump up ^ "India's religious tolerance lauded". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
21.Jump up ^ "Christian Persecution in India: The Real Story". Stephen-knapp.com. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
22.Jump up ^ "The Constitution of India" (PDF). Retrieved 3 September 2011.
23.^ Jump up to: a b "'Using places of worship for campaigning in Kerala civic polls is violation of poll code'". Indian Orthodox Herald. 18 September 2010. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
24.Jump up ^ "Roger II". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
25.Jump up ^ "Tracing The Norman Rulers of Sicily". New York Times. 26 April 1987. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
26.Jump up ^ Christopher Gravett (15 November 1997). German Medieval Armies 1000–1300. Osprey Publishing. pp. 17. ISBN 978-1-85532-657-6.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Curtis Van Cleve's The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi (Oxford, 1972)
28.Jump up ^ Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council. "Edict of Torda" (DOC). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
29.Jump up ^ Karl Heussi, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, 11. Auflage (1956), Tübingen (Germany), pp. 396-397
30.Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Ciffs, N.J., p. 124
31.Jump up ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
32.^ Jump up to: a b Rogers, Horatio, 2009. Mary Dyer of Rhode Island: The Quaker Martyr That Was Hanged on Boston Common, 1 June 1660 pp.1–2. BiblioBazaar, LLC
33.Jump up ^ Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: a comprehensive encyclopedia. Google Books. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
34.^ Jump up to: a b Zimmerman, Mark, Symbol of Enduring Freedom, p. 19, Columbia Magazine, March 2010
35.Jump up ^ Brugger, Robert J. (1988). Maryland: A Middle Temperament. , p 21, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-3399-X.
36.Jump up ^ Finkelman, Paul, Maryland Toleration Act, The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, New York: CRC Press. ISBN 0-415-94342-6.
37.^ Jump up to: a b id=6ybHa6D24qQC&pg=PA78&dq=henry+darnall&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3&ei=fcKDS_qNIKjoygTH_rnxCg&cd=5#v=onepage&q=henry%20darnall&f=false Roark, Elisabeth Louise, p.78, Artists of colonial America Retrieved 22 February 2010
38.Jump up ^ Christopher Fennell (1998), Plymouth Colony Legal Structure (http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html)
39.Jump up ^ Hanover Historical Texts Project (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html)
40.Jump up ^ M. Schmidt, Pilgerväter, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Tübingen (Germany), Band V (1961), col. 384
41.Jump up ^ M. Schmidt, Hooker, Thomas, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band III (1959), col. 449
42.Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 74-75, 99, 102-105, 113-115
43.Jump up ^ Edwin S. Gaustad (1999), Liberty of Conscience: Roger Williams in America, Judson Press, Valley Forge
44.Jump up ^ Hans Fantel (1974), William Penn: Apostel of Dissent, William Morrow & Co., New York, N.Y.
45.Jump up ^ Heinrich Bornkamm, Toleranz. In der Geschichte der Christenheit, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band VI (1962), col. 943
46.Jump up ^ Robert Middlekauff (2005), The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, Revised and Expanded Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-531588-2, p. 635
47.Jump up ^ Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere. 2.2.2 Headcoverings. Parliament of Canada. Publication No. 2011-60-E. Published 2011-07-25. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
48.Jump up ^ "A/RES/36/55. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". United Nations. 25 November 1981. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
49.Jump up ^ "CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18". Minorityrights.org.
50.^ Jump up to: a b c International Federation for Human Rights (1 August 2003). "Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran" (PDF). fdih.org. Retrieved 3 March 2009.
51.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right" (PDF). Retrieved 3 March 2009.
52.Jump up ^ "The Constitution Guarantees Freedom From Religion". Freedom From Religion Foundation. August 28, 2000. Retrieved December 27, 2012.
53.Jump up ^ Elena Garcia, Atheist Billboard Hits Idaho, 10 March 2009, The Christian Post.
54.Jump up ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.643-649
55.Jump up ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.647
56.^ Jump up to: a b "Hindu Beliefs". religionfacts.com.
57.Jump up ^ "Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Global restrictions on Religion (2009" http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport1.pdf
58.Jump up ^ "Police arrest 5 women at Western Wall for wearing tallitot" Jerusalem Post (Apr 11, 2013)
59.Jump up ^ "Maltz, Judy 'Non-Orthodox Jews prohibited from praying in Knesset synagogue' (Nov 26, 2014) Haaretz" http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.628571
60.^ Jump up to: a b c "Declaration on religious freedom – Dignitatis humanae". Vatican.va. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
61.Jump up ^ Pope Pius IX. "THE SYLLABUS". Global Catholic Neetwork.
62.Jump up ^ "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may", the eleventh Article of Faith.
63.Jump up ^ Mutua, Makau. 2004. Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
64.Jump up ^ J. D. Van der Vyver; John Witte (1996). Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives 2. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. [1]. ISBN 90-411-0177-2.
65.Jump up ^ Introduction | Breaking India
66.Jump up ^ Joel H. Spring (2001). Globalization and educational rights: an intercivilizational analysis. Routledge. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-8058-3882-4.
67.Jump up ^ United States of America, Department of State. "2010 International Religious Freedom Report". International Religious Freedom Report. US Department of State. Retrieved 15 February 2012.
68.Jump up ^ Islam and Belief: At Home with Religious Freedom, Abdullah Saeed (2014): 8.
69.Jump up ^ Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (2007). "A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran" (PDF). Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-11-27. Retrieved 3 March 2007.
70.Jump up ^ Mayton, Joseph (19 December 2006). "Egypt's Bahais denied citizenship rights". Middle East Times. Archived from the original on 2009-04-06. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
71.Jump up ^ Otterman, Sharon (17 December 2006). "Court denies Bahai couple document IDs". The Washington Times. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
72.^ Jump up to: a b c Nkrumah, Gamal (21 December 2006). "Rendered faithless and stateless". Al-Ahram weekly. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
73.Jump up ^ "US State Department report on Greece". State.gov. 8 November 2005. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
74.Jump up ^ Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief. p. 652. ISBN 978-90-04-13783-7.
75.Jump up ^ Sanu, Sankrant (2006). "Re-examining Religious Freedom" (PDF). Manushi. Retrieved 26 July 2008.
76.Jump up ^ "No place to call home" (PDF). Christian Solidarity Worldwide. 29 April 2008.
77.Jump up ^ [2] from "Leaving Islam: Apostates speak out" by Ibn Warraq
78.^ Jump up to: a b Heffening, W. "Murtadd". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Encyclopaedia of Islam Online Edition. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.
79.Jump up ^ Adbul Qadir Oudah (1999). Kitab Bhavan. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan. ISBN 81-7151-273-9., Volume II. pp. 258–262; Volume IV. pp. 19–21
80.Jump up ^ S. A. Rahman (2007). "Summary and Conclusions". Punishment of Apostasy in Islam. The Other Press. pp. 132–142. ISBN 978-983-9541-49-6.
81.Jump up ^ Pencovic v. Pencovic, 45 Cal. 2d 67 (1955).
82.Jump up ^ Criminal Law and Procedure, Daniel E. Hall. Cengage Learning, July 2008. p. 266. [3]
83.Jump up ^ "Gesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung". Bundesrecht.juris.de. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
84.Jump up ^ Bundesgesetz 1985 über die religiöse Kindererziehung (pdf)
85.Jump up ^ "Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Art 303: Religiöse Erziehung". Gesetze.ch. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
86.Jump up ^ Margery Post Abbott (2011). Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers). Scarecrow Press. pp. 102. ISBN 978-0-8108-7088-8.
87.Jump up ^ Religious Freedom Day, 2006 – A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America, Religious Freedom Day, 2001 – Proclamation by the President of the United States of America 15 January 2001
88.Jump up ^ "US commission names 14 worst violators of religious freedom". Christianity Today. 29 April 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
 ^ "USCIRF Identifies World's Worst Religious Freedom Violators: Egypt Cited for First Time" (Press release). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 28 April 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
 ^ Annual Report 2011 (PDF) (Report). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. May 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
89.Jump up ^ "France Passes Religious Symbol Ban". Christianity Today. 9 February 2004. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
90.Jump up ^ "The Islamic veil across Europe". BBC News. 17 November 2006. Retrieved 2 December 2006.
91.Jump up ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved 4 July 2009.
92.^ Jump up to: a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Executive summary)". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. Retrieved 29 December 2009.
93.^ Jump up to: a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Full report)" (PDF). The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. Retrieved 12 September 2013.
94.^ Jump up to: a b "Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities". Pew Forum. 26 Feb 2015.
95.Jump up ^ Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion (Report). Pew Research Center. September 20, 2012.
96.Jump up ^ "Table: Social Hostilities Index by country" (PDF). Pew Research Center. 2012.
Further reading[edit]
Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall. The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press, 2009).
Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3.
Beneke, Chris (20 September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
Curry, Thomas J. (19 December 1989). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (19 December 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
Frost, J. William (1990) A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in Pennsylvania (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).
Gaustad, Edwin S. (2004, 2nd ed.) Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776–1826 (Waco: Baylor University Press).
Hamilton, Marci A. (17 June 2005). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8.
Hasson, Kevin 'Seamus', The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America, Encounter Books, 2005, ISBN 1-59403-083-9
McLoughlin, William G. (1971). New England Dissent: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State (2 VOLS.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5.
Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Stokes, Anson Phelps (1950) Church and State in the United States, Historic Development and Contemporary Problems of Religious Freedom under the Constitution, 3 Volumes (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers).
Stokes, DaShanne (In Press). Legalized Segregation and the Denial of Religious Freedom at the Wayback Machine (archived October 27, 2009)
Stüssi Marcel, MODELS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Switzerland, the United States, and Syria by Analytical, Methodological, and Eclectic Representation, 375 ff. (Lit 2012)., by Marcel Stüssi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
Associated Press (2002). Appeals court upholds man's use of eagle feathers for religious practices
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)
Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious
Ban on Minarets: On the Validity of a Controversial Swiss Popular Initiative (2008), , by Marcel Stuessi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
"Religious Liberty: The legal framework in selected OSCE countries." (PDF). Law Library, U.S. Library of Congress. May 2000. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2007.
Utt, Walter C. (1964). "Brickbats and Dead Cats" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 59 (4, July–August): 18–21. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
Utt, Walter C. (1960). "A Plea for the Somewhat Disorganized Man" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 55 (4, July–August): 15, 16, 29. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Utt, Walter C. (1974). "Toleration is a Nasty Word" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 69 (2, March–April): 10–13. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Zippelius, Reinhold (2009). Staat und Kirche, ch.13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-150016-9.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Freedom of religion
Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations.
The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of "Religion" in International Law Harvard Human Rights Journal article from the President and Fellows of Harvard College (2003)
Human Rights Brief No. 3, Freedom Of Religion and Belief Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
U.S. State Department country reports
Institute for Global Engagement
Institute for Religious Freedom


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Liberty













Liberty



































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Substantive human rights






























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity and politics

















































Authority control
GND: 4125186-6 ·
 NDL: 00571078
 

  


Categories: Freedom 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
Alemannisch
العربية
Беларуская
Български
བོད་ཡིག
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Føroyskt
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Latina
Magyar
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پښتو
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 16:50.
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/Freedom_of_religion









Freedom of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Freedom of worship" and "Freedom to Worship" redirect here. For the 1943 painting/poster, see Freedom to Worship (painting).

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group—in religious terms called "apostasy"—is also a fundamental[peacock term] part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2]
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right.[3][4] In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths.


Contents  [hide]
1 History 1.1 Muslim world
1.2 India
1.3 Europe 1.3.1 Religious intolerance
1.3.2 Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance
1.3.3 Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom 1.3.3.1 Poland

1.4 United States
1.5 Canada
1.6 International
2 Contemporary debates 2.1 Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs
2.2 Liberal secular
2.3 Hinduism
2.4 Judaism
2.5 Christianity
2.6 Islam
2.7 Changing religion 2.7.1 Apostasy in Islam
2.8 Secular law
3 Children's rights
4 International Religious Freedom Day
5 Modern concerns 5.1 Social hostilities and government restrictions
6 See also 6.1 Lawsuits
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

History[edit]

Text document with red question mark.svg
 This section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (help, talk, get involved!) (September 2010)



Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)
Historically, freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has also often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally "protected individuals" professing an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion.



 The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.
In Antiquity, a syncretic point of view often allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs. When street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was generally perceived to be an infringement of community rights.
Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder.[5][6]
Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of power: Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. Others have been where the established order has felt threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 399 BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, and refusal to offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance. This was the core for resentment and the persecution of early Christian communities.
Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.
Greek-Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 73 AD and 117 AD and in Alexandria in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult.
Muslim world[edit]
Following a period of fighting lasting around a hundred years before 620 AD which mainly involved Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Medina (then known as Yathrib), religious freedom for Muslims, Jews and pagans were declared by Muhammad in the Constitution of Medina. The Islamic Caliphate later guaranteed religious freedom under the conditions that non-Muslim communities accept dhimmi (second class) status and their adult males pay the jizya tax as a substitute for the zakat paid by Muslim citizens.[7][8]
Religious pluralism existed in classical Islamic ethics and Sharia law, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, and the Ottoman Millet system.[9][10] In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judges) usually could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts.[11]
Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order.[12] Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in religious practices that was usually forbidden by Islamic law, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork, as well as religious practices which Muslims found repugnant, such as the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292–1350), non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion.[13]
India[edit]
Main article: Freedom of religion in India
Religious freedom and the right to worship freely were practices that had been appreciated and promoted by most ancient Indian dynasties.[citation needed] As a result, people fleeing religious persecution in other parts of the world including Christians, Jews, Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrians fled to India as a place of refuge to enjoy religious freedom.[14][15][16]
Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,500 years ago settled in India and never faced anti-Semitism.[17] Freedom of religion edicts have been found written during Ashoka the Great's reign in the 3rd century BC. Freedom to practise, preach and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Modern India. Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in the list of national holidays.
Although India is an 80% Hindu country, three out of the twelve presidents of India have been Muslims.
Many scholars and intellectuals believe that India's predominant religion, Hinduism, has long been a most tolerant religion.[18] Rajni Kothari, founder of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies has written, "[India] is a country built on the foundations of a civilisation that is fundamentally non-religious."[19]
The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader in exile said that religious tolerance of 'Aryabhoomi,' a reference to India found in Mahabharata, has been in existence in this country from thousands of years. "Not only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism which are the native religions but also Christianity and Islam have flourished here. Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition," the Dalai Lama said.[20]
Freedom of religion in the Indian subcontinent is exemplified by the reign of King Piyadasi (304 BC to 232 BC) (Ashoka). One of King Ashoka's main concerns was to reform governmental institutes and exercise moral principles in his attempt to create a just and humane society. Later he promoted the principles of Buddhism, and the creation of a just, understanding and fair society was held as an important principle for many ancient rulers of this time in the East.
The importance of freedom of worship in India was encapsulated in an inscription of Ashoka:

King Piyadasi (Ashok) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways. But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them. For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech. That is to say, one must not exalt one's creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.
The initial entry of Islam into South Asia came in the first century after the death of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. When around 1210 AD the Islamic Sultanates invaded India from the north-west, gradually the principle of freedom of religion deteriorated in this part of the world. They were subsequently replaced by another Islamic invader in the form of Babur. The Mughal empire was founded by the Mongol leader Babur in 1526, when he defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Delhi Sultans at the First Battle of Panipat. The word "Mughal" is the Indo-Iranian version of Mongol.
On the main Asian continent, the Mongols were tolerant of religions. People could worship as they wished freely and openly, though the formation of 2 nations i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh has been on basis of religious intolerance.
After arrival of Europeans, Christians in zeal to convert local as per belief in conversion as service of God, have also been seen to fall into frivolous methods since their arrival. Though by and large there are hardly any reports of law and order disturbance from mobs with Christian beliefs except perhaps in the north eastern region of India.[21]
Freedom of religion in contemporary India is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the nation's constitution. Accordingly every citizen of India has a right to profess, practice and propagate their religions peacefully.[22] Vishwa Hindu Parishad counters this argument by saying that evangelical Christians are forcefully (or through money) converting rural, illiterate populations and they are only trying to stop this.
In September 2010, Indian state Kerala's State Election Commissioner announced that "Religious heads cannot issue calls to vote for members of a particular community or to defeat the nonbelievers".[23] The Catholic Church comprising Latin, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rites used to give clear directions to the faithful on exercising their franchise during elections through pastoral letters issued by bishops or council of bishops. The pastoral letter issued by Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) on the eve of the poll urged the faithful to shun atheists.[23]
Even today, most Indians celebrate all religious festivals with equal enthusiasm and respect. Hindu festivals like Deepavali and Holi, Muslim festivals like Eid al-Fitr, Eid-Ul-Adha, Muharram, Christian festivals like Christmas and other festivals like Buddha Purnima, Mahavir Jayanti, Gur Purab etc. are celebrated and enjoyed by all Indians.
Europe[edit]
Religious intolerance[edit]
Most Roman Catholic kingdoms kept a tight rein on religious expression throughout the Middle Ages. Jews were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the most notable examples of the latter being the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492. Some of those who remained and converted were tried as heretics in the Inquisition for allegedly practicing Judaism in secret. Despite the persecution of Jews, they were the most tolerated non-Catholic faith in Europe.
However, the latter was in part a reaction to the growing movement that became the Reformation. As early as 1380, John Wycliffe in England denied transubstantiation and began his translation of the Bible into English. He was condemned in a Papal Bull in 1410, and all his books were burned.
In 1414, Jan Hus, a Bohemian preacher of reformation, was given a safe conduct by the Holy Roman Emperor to attend the Council of Constance. Not entirely trusting in his safety, he made his will before he left. His forebodings proved accurate, and he was burned at the stake on 6 July 1415. The Council also decreed that Wycliffe's remains be disinterred and cast out. This decree was not carried out until 1429.
After the fall of the city of Granada, Spain, in 1492, the Muslim population was promised religious freedom by the Treaty of Granada, but that promise was short-lived. In 1501, Granada's Muslims were given an ultimatum to either convert to Christianity or to emigrate. The majority converted, but only superficially, continuing to dress and speak as they had before and to secretly practice Islam. The Moriscos (converts to Christianity) were ultimately expelled from Spain between 1609 (Castile) and 1614 (rest of Spain), by Philip III.
Martin Luther published his famous 95 Theses in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. His major aim was theological, summed up in the three basic dogmas of Protestantism:
The Bible only is infallible
Every Christian can interpret it
Human sins are so wrongful that no deed or merit, only God's grace, can lead to salvation.
In consequence, Luther hoped to stop the sale of indulgences and to reform the Church from within. In 1521, he was given the chance to recant at the Diet of Worms before Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, then only 19. After he refused to recant, he was declared heretic. Partly for his own protection, he was sequestered on the Wartburg in the possessions of Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, where he translated the New Testament into German. He was excommunicated by Papal Bull in 1521.
However, the movement continued to gain ground in his absence and spread to Switzerland. Huldrych Zwingli preached reform in Zürich from 1520 to 1523. He opposed the sale of indulgences, celibacy, pilgrimages, pictures, statues, relics, altars, and organs. This culminated in outright war between the Swiss cantons that accepted Protestantism and the Catholics. The Catholics were victorious, and Zwingli was killed in battle in 1531. The Catholic cantons were magnanimous in victory.[citation needed]
The defiance of Papal authority proved contagious, and in 1533, when Henry VIII of England was excommunicated for his divorce and remarriage to Anne Boleyn, he promptly established a state church with bishops appointed by the crown. This was not without internal opposition, and Thomas More, who had been his Lord Chancellor, was executed in 1535 for opposition to Henry.
In 1535, the Swiss canton of Geneva became Protestant. In 1536, the Bernese imposed the reformation on the canton of Vaud by conquest. They sacked the cathedral in Lausanne and destroyed all its art and statuary. John Calvin, who had been active in Geneva was expelled in 1538 in a power struggle, but he was invited back in 1540.



 A US Postage Stamp commemorating religious freedom and the Flushing Remonstrance.
The same kind of seesaw back and forth between Protestantism and Catholicism was evident in England when Mary I of England returned that country briefly to the Catholic fold in 1553 and persecuted Protestants. However, her half-sister, Elizabeth I of England was to restore the Church of England in 1558, this time permanently, and began to persecute Catholics again. The King James Bible commissioned by King James I of England and published in 1611 proved a landmark for Protestant worship, with official Catholic forms of worship being banned.
In France, although peace was made between Protestants and Catholics at the Treaty of Saint Germain in 1570, persecution continued, most notably in the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day on 24 August 1572, in which thousands of Protestants throughout France were killed. A few years before, at the "Michelade" of Nîmes in 1567, Protestants had massacred the local Catholic clergy.
Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance[edit]



 The cross of the war memorial and a menorah coexist in Oxford, Oxfordshire, England.
The Norman Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II was characterized by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance. Normans, Jews, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Lombards, and native Sicilians lived in harmony.[24][25][not in citation given] Rather than exterminate the Muslims of Sicily, Roger II's grandson Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1215—1250) allowed them to settle on the mainland and build mosques. Not least, he enlisted them in his – Christian – army and even into his personal bodyguards[26][need quotation to verify][27][need quotation to verify]
Bohemia (present-day Czech Republic) enjoyed religious freedom between 1436 and 1520, and became one of the most liberal countries of the Christian world during that period of time. The so-called Basel Compacts of 1436 declared the freedom of religion and peace between Catholics and Utraquists. In 1609 Emperor Rudolf II granted Bohemia greater religious liberty with his Letter of Majesty. The privileged position of the Catholic Church in the Czech kingdom was firmly established after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. Gradually freedom of religion in Bohemian lands came to an end and Protestants fled or were expelled from the country. A devout Catholic, Emperor Ferdinand II forcibly converted Austrian and Bohemian Protestants.[citation needed]
In the meantime, in Germany Philip Melanchthon drafted the Augsburg Confession as a common confession for the Lutherans and the free territories. It was presented to Charles V in 1530.
In the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V agreed to tolerate Lutheranism in 1555 at the Peace of Augsburg. Each state was to take the religion of its prince, but within those states, there was not necessarily religious tolerance. Citizens of other faiths could relocate to a more hospitable environment.
In France, from the 1550s, many attempts to reconcile Catholics and Protestants and to establish tolerance failed because the State was too weak to enforce them. It took the victory of prince Henry IV of France, who had converted into Protestantism, and his accession to the throne, to impose religious tolerance formalized in the Edict of Nantes in 1598. It would remain in force for over 80 years until its revocation in 1685 by Louis XIV of France. Intolerance remained the norm until Louis XVI, who signed the Edict of Versailles (1787), then the constitutional text of 24 December 1789, granting civilian rights to Protestants. The French Revolution then abolished state religion and confiscated all Church property, turning intolerance against Catholics.[citation needed]
Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom[edit]
In 1558, the Transylvanian Diet of Torda declared free practice of both the Catholic and Lutheran religions, but prohibited Calvinism. Ten years later, in 1568, the Diet extended the freedom to all religions, declaring that "It is not allowed to anybody to intimidate anybody with captivity or expelling for his religion". However, it was more than a religious tolerance, it declared the equality of the religions. The emergence in social hierarchy wasn't depend on the religion of the person thus Transylvania had also Catholic and Protestant monarchs (Princes). The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe. Therefore, the Edict of Torda is considered by mostly Hungarian historians as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe.

ACT OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:
His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearings is by the word of God.
— Diet at Torda, 1568 : King John Sigismund[28]
In the Union of Utrecht (20 January 1579), personal freedom of religion was declared in the struggle between the Northern Netherlands and Spain. The Union of Utrecht was an important step in the establishment of the Dutch Republic (from 1581 to 1795). Under Calvinist leadership, the Netherlands became the most tolerant country in Europe. It granted asylum to persecuted religious minorities, e.g. French Huguenots, English Dissenters, and Jews who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal.[29] The establishment of a Jewish community in the Netherlands and New Amsterdam (present-day New York) during the Dutch Republic is an example of religious freedom. When New Amsterdam surrendered to the English in 1664, freedom of religion was guaranteed in the Articles of Capitulation. It benefitted also the Jews who had landed on Manhattan Island in 1654, fleeing Portuguese persecution in Brazil. During the 18th century, other Jewish communities were established at Newport, Rhode Island, Philadelphia, Charleston, Savannah, and Richmond.[30]
Intolerance of dissident forms of Protestantism also continued, as evidenced by the exodus of the Pilgrims, who sought refuge, first in the Netherlands, and ultimately in America, founding Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts in 1620. William Penn, the founder of Philadelphia, was involved in a case which had a profound effect upon future American laws and those of England. In a classic case of jury nullification the jury refused to convict William Penn of preaching a Quaker sermon, which was illegal. Even though the jury was imprisoned for their acquittal, they stood by their decision and helped establish the freedom of religion.
Poland[edit]
Main article: Warsaw Confederation



 Original act of the Warsaw Confederation 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Poland has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in Poland in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. Poland kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[31]
The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Boleslaus the Pious on 8 September 1264 in Kalisz. The statute served as the basis for the legal position of Jews in Poland and led to creation of the Yiddish-speaking autonomous Jewish nation until 1795. The statute granted exclusive jurisdiction of Jewish courts over Jewish matters and established a separate tribunal for matters involving Christians and Jews. Additionally, it guaranteed personal liberties and safety for Jews including freedom of religion, travel, and trade. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III of Poland in 1334, Casimir IV of Poland in 1453 and Sigismund I of Poland in 1539. The Commonwealth set a precedent by allowing Jews to become ennobled.
United States[edit]
See also: Freedom of religion in the United States
Most of the early colonies were generally not tolerant of dissident forms of worship, with Maryland being one of the exceptions. For example, Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the most active of the New England persecutors of Quakers, and the persecuting spirit was shared by Plymouth Colony and the colonies along the Connecticut river.[32] In 1660, one of the most notable victims of the religious intolerance was English Quaker Mary Dyer, who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[32] As one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs, the hanging of Dyer on the Boston gallows marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan theocracy and New England independence from English rule, and in 1661 King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[33]
Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[34] Fifteen years later (1649), the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof." The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed during the Cromwellian Era with the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.[35] In 1657, the Catholic Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty years, until 1692[36] when, after Maryland's Protestant Revolution of 1689, freedom of religion was again rescinded.[34][37] In addition, in 1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.[37] Full religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until the American Revolution, when Maryland's Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the American Declaration of Independence.
Rhode Island (1636), Connecticut (1636), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (1682)—founded by Protestants Roger Williams, Thomas Hooker, and William Penn, respectively—combined the democratic form of government which had been developed by the Puritans and the Separatist Congregationalists in Massachusetts with religious freedom.[38][39][40][41] These colonies became sanctuaries for persecuted religious minorities. Catholics and later on Jews also had full citizenship and free exercise of their religions.[42][43][44] Williams, Hooker, Penn, and their friends were firmly convinced that freedom of conscience was the will of God. Williams gave the most profound argument: As faith is the free work of the Holy Spirit, it cannot be forced on a person. Therefore strict separation of church and state has to be kept.[45] Pennsylvania was the only colony that retained unlimited religious freedom until the foundation of the United States in 1776. It was the inseparable connection between democracy, religious freedom, and the other forms of freedom which became the political and legal basis of the new nation. In particular, Baptists and Presbyterians demanded the disestablishment of state churches - Anglican and Congregationalist - and the protection of religious freedom.[46]
Reiterating Maryland's and the other colonies' earlier colonial legislation, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The United States formally considers religious freedom in its foreign relations. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom which investigates the records of over 200 other nations with respect to religious freedom, and makes recommendations to submit nations with egregious records to ongoing scrutiny and possible economic sanctions. Many human rights organizations have urged the United States to be still more vigorous in imposing sanctions on countries that do not permit or tolerate religious freedom.
Canada[edit]
Further information: Freedom of religion in Canada
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. Canadian law goes further, requiring that private citizens and companies provide reasonable accommodation to those, for example, with strong religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights Act allows an exception to reasonable accommodation with respect to religious dress, such as a Sikh turban, when there is a bona fide occupational requirement, such as a workplace requiring a hard hat.[47]
International[edit]
On 25 November 1981, the United Nations General Assembly passed the "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". This declaration recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental human right in accordance with several other instruments of international law, but the international community has not passed any binding legal instruments that guarantee the right to freedom of religion.[48]
Contemporary debates[edit]

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs[edit]
In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief."[49] The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views." Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are still persecuted in many parts of the world.[50][51]
Within the United States, the Freedom From Religion Foundation argues that the United States Constitution not only prohibits the intrusion of religion into the processes of government, but also guarantees equal rights to citizens who choose not to follow any religion.[52] Conservative sociopolitical commentator Bryan Fischer has responded: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."[53]
Liberal secular[edit]

A man posing for a print

Adam Smith argued in favour of freedom of religion.
Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations (using an argument first put forward by his friend and contemporary David Hume), states that in the long run it is in the best interests of society as a whole and the civil magistrate (government) in particular to allow people to freely choose their own religion, as it helps prevent civil unrest and reduces intolerance. So long as there are enough different religions and/or religious sects operating freely in a society then they are all compelled to moderate their more controversial and violent teachings, so as to be more appealing to more people and so have an easier time attracting new converts. It is this free competition amongst religious sects for converts that ensures stability and tranquillity in the long run.
Smith also points out that laws that prevent religious freedom and seek to preserve the power and belief in a particular religion will, in the long run, only serve to weaken and corrupt that religion, as its leaders and preachers become complacent, disconnected and unpractised in their ability to seek and win over new converts:[54]

The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent, where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or, perhaps, into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which are so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects.[55]
Hinduism[edit]
Hinduism is one of the more open-minded religions when it comes to religious freedom.[56] It respects the right of everyone to reach God in their own way. Hindus believe in different ways to preach attainment of God and religion as a philosophy and hence respect all religions as equal. One of the famous Hindu sayings about religion is: "Truth is one; sages call it by different names."[56]
Judaism[edit]
Judaism includes multiple streams, such as Orthodox, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, Jewish Renewal and Humanistic Judaism. Israel, viewed as the Jewish homeland, has been evaluated in research by the Pew organization as having "high" government restrictions on religion. The government recognizes only Orthodox Judaism in certain matters of personal status, and marriages can only be performed by religious authorities. The government provides the greatest funding to Orthodox Judaism, even though adherents represent a minority of citizens.[57] Jewish women have been arrested at the Western Wall for praying and singing while wearing religious garments the Orthodox feel should be reserved for men. Women of the Wall have organized to promote religious freedom at the Wall.[58] In November 2014, a group of 60 non-Orthodox rabbinical students were told they would not be allowed to pray in the Knesset synagogue because it is reserved for Orthodox. Rabbi Joel Levy, director of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem, said that he had submitted the request on behalf of the students and saw their shock when the request was denied. He noted: "paradoxically, this decision served as an appropriate end to our conversation about religion and state in Israel." MK Dov Lipman expressed the concern that many Knesset workers are unfamiliar with non-Orthodox and American practices and would view "an egalitarian service in the synagogue as an affront."[59]
Christianity[edit]



 Part of the Oscar Straus Memorial in Washington, D.C. honoring the right to worship.
According to the Catholic Church in the Vatican II document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, "the human person has a right to religious freedom", which is described as "immunity from coercion in civil society".[60] This principle of religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion."[60] In addition, this right "is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."[60]
Prior to this, Pope Pius IX had written a document called the Syllabus of Errors. The Syllabus was made up of phrases and paraphrases from earlier papal documents, along with index references to them, and presented as a list of "condemned propositions". It does not explain why each particular proposition is wrong, but it cites earlier documents to which the reader can refer for the Pope's reasons for saying each proposition is false. Among the statements included in the Syllabus are: "[It is an error to say that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true" (15); "[It is an error to say that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" (77); "[It is an error to say that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship" (78).[61]
Some Orthodox Christians, especially those living in democratic countries, support religious freedom for all, as evidenced by the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many Protestant Christian churches, including some Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventist Church and main line churches have a commitment to religious freedoms. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also affirms religious freedom.[62]
However others, such as African scholar Makau Mutua, have argued that Christian insistence on the propagation of their faith to native cultures as an element of religious freedom has resulted in a corresponding denial of religious freedom to native traditions and led to their destruction. As he states in the book produced by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, "Imperial religions have necessarily violated individual conscience and the communal expressions of Africans and their communities by subverting African religions."[63][64]
In their book Breaking India, Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan discussed the "US Church" funding activities in India, such as the popularly advertised campaigns to "save" poor children by feeding, clothing, and educating them, with the book arguing that the funds collected were being used not so much for the purposes indicated to sponsors, but for indoctrination and conversion activities. They suggest that India is the prime target of a huge enterprise—a "network" of organizations, individuals, and churches—that, they argue, seem intensely devoted to the task of creating a separatist identity, history, and even religion for the vulnerable sections of India. They suggest that this nexus of players includes not only church groups, government bodies, and related organizations, but also private think tanks and academics.[65]
Joel Spring has written about the Christianization of the Roman Empire:

Christianity added new impetus to the expansion of empire. Increasing the arrogance of the imperial project, Christians insisted that the Gospels and the Church were the only valid sources of religious beliefs. Imperialists could claim that they were both civilizing the world and spreading the true religion. By the 5th century, Christianity was thought of as co-extensive with the Imperium romanum. This meant that to be human, as opposed to being a natural slave, was to be "civilized" and Christian. Historian Anthony Pagden argues, "just as the civitas; had now become coterminous with Christianity, so to be human—to be, that is, one who was 'civil', and who was able to interpret correctly the law of nature—one had now also to be Christian." After the fifteenth century, most Western colonialists rationalized the spread of empire with the belief that they were saving a barbaric and pagan world by spreading Christian civilization.[66]
Islam[edit]
Main articles: Political aspects of Islam, Sharia, Caliphate, Islamic religious police and Islamism
Conversion to Islam is simple (cf. shahada), but Muslims are forbidden to convert from Islam to another religion (cf. Apostasy in Islam). Certain Muslim-majority countries are known for their restrictions on religious freedom, highly favoring Muslim citizens over non-Muslim citizens. Other countries[who?] having the same restrictive laws tend to be more liberal when imposing them. Even other Muslim-majority countries are secular and thus do not regulate religious belief.[67][not in citation given]
Some Islamic theologians[who?] quote the Qur'an ("There is no compulsion in religion"[2:256] and "Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine"[109:1–6], i.e., Sura Al-Kafirun) to show scriptural support for religious freedom.
Quran 2:190–194, referring to the war against Pagans during the Battle of Badr in Medina, indicates that Muslims are only allowed to fight against those who intend to harm them (right of self-defense) and that if their enemies surrender, they must also stop because God does not like those who transgress limits.
In Bukhari:V9 N316, Jabir ibn 'Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin accepted Islam and then when he got a fever he demanded that Muhammad to cancel his pledge (allow him to renounce Islam). Muhammad refused to do so. The Bedouin man repeated his demand once, but Muhammad once again refused. Then, he (the Bedouin) left Medina. Muhammad said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good." In this narration, there was no evidence demonstrating that Muhammad ordered the execution of the Bedouin for wanting to renounce Islam.
In addition, Quran 5:3, which is believed to be God's final revelation to Muhammad, states that Muslims are to fear God and not those who reject Islam, and Quran 53:38–39 states that one is accountable only for one's own actions. Therefore, it postulates that in Islam, in the matters of practising a religion, it does not relate to a worldly punishment, but rather these actions are accountable to God in the afterlife. Thus, this supports the argument against the execution of apostates in Islam.[68]
However, on the other hand, some Muslims support the practice of executing apostates who leave Islam, as in Bukhari:V4 B52 N260; "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
In Iran, the constitution recognizes four religions whose status is formally protected: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[50] The constitution, however, also set the groundwork for the institutionalized persecution of Bahá'ís,[69] who have been subjected to arrests, beatings, executions, confiscation and destruction of property, and the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education.[50] There is no freedom of conscience in Iran, as converting from Islam to any other religion is forbidden.
In Egypt, a 16 December 2006 judgment of the Supreme Administrative Council created a clear demarcation between recognized religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – and all other religious beliefs;[70][71] no other religious affiliation is officially admissible.[72] The ruling leaves members of other religious communities, including Bahá'ís, without the ability to obtain the necessary government documents to have rights in their country, essentially denying them of all rights of citizenship.[72] They cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, and passports; they also cannot be employed, educated, treated in public hospitals or vote, among other things.[72] See Egyptian identification card controversy.
Changing religion[edit]
Main article: Religious conversion
Among the most contentious areas of religious freedom is the right of an individual to change or abandon his or her own religion (apostasy), and the right to evangelize individuals seeking to convince others to make such a change.
Other debates have centered around restricting certain kinds of missionary activity by religions. Many Islamic states, and others such as China, severely restrict missionary activities of other religions. Greece, among European countries, has generally looked unfavorably on missionary activities of denominations others than the majority church and proselytizing is constitutionally prohibited.[73]
A different kind of critique of the freedom to propagate religion has come from non-Abrahamic traditions such as the African and Indian. African scholar Makau Mutua criticizes religious evangelism on the ground of cultural annihilation by what he calls "proselytizing universalist faiths" (Chapter 28: Proselytism and Cultural Integrity, page 652):

...the (human) rights regime incorrectly assumes a level playing field by requiring that African religions compete in the marketplace of ideas. The rights corpus not only forcibly imposes on African religions the obligation to compete—a task for which as nonproselytizing, noncompetitive creeds they are not historically fashioned—but also protects the evangelizing religions in their march towards universalization ... it seems inconceivable that the human rights regime would have intended to protect the right of certain religions to destroy others.[74]
Some Indian scholars[75] have similarly argued that the right to propagate religion is not culturally or religiously neutral.
In Sri Lanka, there have been debates regarding a bill on religious freedom that seeks to protect indigenous religious traditions from certain kinds of missionary activities. Debates have also occurred in various states of India regarding similar laws, particularly those that restrict conversions using force, fraud or allurement.
In 2008, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a Christian human rights non-governmental organisation which specializes in religious freedom, launched an in-depth report on the human rights abuses faced by individuals who leave Islam for another religion. The report is the product of a year long research project in six different countries. It calls on Muslim nations, the international community, the UN and the international media to resolutely address the serious violations of human rights suffered by apostates.[76]
Apostasy in Islam[edit]
Main articles: Apostasy in Islam, Takfir and Mutaween



 Legal opinion on apostasy by the Fatwa committee at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the highest Islamic institution in the world, concerning the case of a man who converted to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."
In Islam, apostasy is called "ridda" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community).[77]
In Islamic law (Sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.[78]
Ideally, the one performing the execution of an apostate must be an imam.[78] At the same time, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that any Muslim can kill an apostate without punishment.[79]
However, while almost all scholars agree about the punishment, many disagree on the allowable time to retract the apostasy. Many scholars push this as far as allowing the apostate till he/she dies. Thus, practically making the death penalty just a theoretical statement/exercise.[citation needed] S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an.[80]
Secular law[edit]
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law, creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though polygamy is permitted in Islam, it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. This raises the question of whether prohibiting the practice infringes on the beliefs of certain Muslims. The US and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two different views of this. In India, polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under Muslim Personal Law. In the US, polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the early LDS Church and the United States until the Church amended its position on practicing polygamy.
Similar issues have also arisen in the context of the religious use of psychedelic substances by Native American tribes in the United States as well as other Native practices.
In 1955, Chief Justice of California Roger J. Traynor neatly summarized the American position on how freedom of religion cannot imply freedom from law: "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not."[81] But with respect to the religious use of animals within secular law and those acts, the US Supreme Court decision in the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual animal sacrifice, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision: "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection" (quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981)).[82]
Children's rights[edit]
The law in Germany provides the term of "religious majority" (Religiöse Mündigkeit) with a minimum age for minors to follow their own religious beliefs even if their parents don't share those or don't approve. Children 14 and older have the unrestricted right to enter or exit any religious community. Children 12 and older cannot be compelled to change to a different belief. Children 10 and older have to be heard before their parents change their religious upbringing to a different belief.[83] There are similar laws in Austria[84] and in Switzerland.[85]
International Religious Freedom Day[edit]
27 October is International Religious Freedom Day, in commemoration of the execution of the Boston martyrs for their religious convictions 1659–1661.[86] The US proclaimed 16 January Religious Freedom Day.[87]
Modern concerns[edit]
In its 2011 annual report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom designated fourteen nations as "countries of particular concern". The commission chairman commented that these are nations whose conduct marks them as the world's worst religious freedom violators and human rights abusers. The fourteen nations designated were Burma, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Other nations on the commission's watchlist include Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela.[88]
There are concerns about the restrictions on public religious dress in some European countries (including the Hijab, Kippah, and Christian cross).[89][90] Article 18 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights limits restrictions on freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs to those necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.[91] Freedom of religion as a legal concept is related to, but not identical with, religious toleration, separation of church and state, or secular state (laïcité).
Social hostilities and government restrictions[edit]



 Freedom of religion by country (Pew Research Center study, 2009). Light yellow: low restriction; red: very high restriction on freedom of religion.
The Pew Research Center has performed studies on international religious freedom between 2009 and 2015, compiling global data from 16 governmental and non-governmental organizations–including the United Nations, the United States State Department, and Human Rights Watch–and representing over 99.5 percent of the world's population.[92][93] In 2009, nearly 70 percent of the world's population lived in countries classified as having heavy restrictions on freedom of religion.[92][93] This concerns restrictions on religion originating from government prohibitions on free speech and religious expression as well as social hostilities undertaken by private individuals, organisations and social groups. Social hostilities were classified by the level of communal violence and religion-related terrorism.
While most countries provided for the protection of religious freedom in their constitutions or laws, only a quarter of those countries were found to fully respect these legal rights in practice. In 75 countries governments limit the efforts of religious groups to proselytise and in 178 countries religious groups must register with the government. In 2013, Pew classified 30% of countries as having restrictions that tend to target religious minorities, and 61% of countries have social hostilities that tend to target religious minorities.[94]
The countries in North and South America reportedly had some of the lowest levels of government and social restrictions on religion, while The Middle East and North Africa were the regions with the highest. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran were the countries that top the list of countries with the overall highest levels of restriction on religion. Topping the Pew government restrictions index were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, China, Egypt, Burma, Maldives, Eritrea, Malaysia and Brunei.
Of the world's 25 most populous countries, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan had the most restrictions, while Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa, the UK, and the US had some of the lowest levels, as measured by Pew.
Vietnam and China were classified as having high government restrictions on religion but were in the moderate or low range when it came to social hostilities. Nigeria, Bangladesh and India were high in social hostilities but moderate in terms of government actions.
Restrictions on religion across the world increased between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to a 2012 study by the Pew Research Center. Restrictions in each of the five major regions of the world increased—including in the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions where overall restrictions previously had been declining. In 2010, Egypt, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Russia, and Yemen were added to the "very high" category of social hostilities.[95] The five highest social hostility scores were for Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Bangladesh.[96] In 2015, Pew published that social hostilities declined in 2013, but Harassment of Jews increased.[94]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Human rights portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Adiaphora
Forum 18
Freedom of thought
International Association for Religious Freedom
International Center for Law and Religion Studies
International Coalition for Religious Freedom
International Religious Liberty Association
Missouri Executive Order 44
General Order No. 11 (1862)
North American Religious Liberty Association
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States
Religious discrimination
Status of religious freedom by country
Religious education in primary and secondary education
Witch-hunt
Witch trials in the early modern period
Lawsuits[edit]
C. H. v. Oliva et al.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.
2.Jump up ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". The United Nations.
3.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right". Archived from the original on 1 February 2008. Retrieved 5 December 2006. (archived from the original on 1 February 2008).
4.Jump up ^ Congressional Record #29734 – 19 November 2003. Google Books. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
5.Jump up ^ Cyrus Cylinder, livius.org.
6.Jump up ^ Richard A. Taylor; E. Ray Clendenen (15 October 2004). Haggai, Malachi. B&H Publishing Group. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-0-8054-0121-9.
7.Jump up ^ Natan, Yoel (2006). Moon-o-theism, Volume II of II. Yoel Natan. p. 514. ISBN 978-1-4392-9717-9.
8.Jump up ^ Njeuma, Martin Z. (2012). Fulani Hegemony in Yola (Old Adamawa) 1809-1902. African Books Collective. p. 82. ISBN 978-9956-726-95-0.
9.Jump up ^ (Weeramantry 1997, p. 138)[citation needed]
10.Jump up ^ Sachedina, Abdulaziz Abdulhussein (2001). The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513991-7.
11.Jump up ^ Mark R. Cohen (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p. 74. ISBN 0-691-01082-X. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
12.Jump up ^ al-Qattan, Najwa (1999). "Dhimmis in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination". International Journal of Middle East Studies (University of Cambridge) 31 (3): 429–444. doi:10.1017/S0020743800055501. ISSN 00207438.
13.Jump up ^ Sherman A. Jackson (2005). Islam and the Blackamerican: looking toward the third resurrection. Oxford University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0-19-518081-X. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
14.Jump up ^ The Last Jews of Kerala, p98
15.Jump up ^ Katz 2000; Koder 1973; Thomas Puthiakunnel 1973; David de Beth Hillel, 1832; Lord, James Henry 1977.
16.Jump up ^ Parsis#History
17.Jump up ^ Who are the Jews of India? – The S. Mark Taper Foundation imprint in Jewish studies. University of California Press. 2000. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-520-21323-4. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZWX6pF2PTJwC&pg=PA26.; "When the Portuguese arrived in 1498, they brought a spirit of intolerance utterly alien to India. They soon established an Office of Inquisition at Goa, and at their hands Indian Jews experienced the only instance of anti-Semitism ever to occur in Indian soil."
18.Jump up ^ David E. Ludden (1996). Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 257–258. ISBN 0-8122-1585-0.
19.Jump up ^ Rajni Kothari (1998). Communalism in Indian Politics. Rainbow Publishers. pp. 134. ISBN 978-81-86962-00-8.
20.Jump up ^ "India's religious tolerance lauded". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
21.Jump up ^ "Christian Persecution in India: The Real Story". Stephen-knapp.com. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
22.Jump up ^ "The Constitution of India" (PDF). Retrieved 3 September 2011.
23.^ Jump up to: a b "'Using places of worship for campaigning in Kerala civic polls is violation of poll code'". Indian Orthodox Herald. 18 September 2010. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
24.Jump up ^ "Roger II". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
25.Jump up ^ "Tracing The Norman Rulers of Sicily". New York Times. 26 April 1987. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
26.Jump up ^ Christopher Gravett (15 November 1997). German Medieval Armies 1000–1300. Osprey Publishing. pp. 17. ISBN 978-1-85532-657-6.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Curtis Van Cleve's The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi (Oxford, 1972)
28.Jump up ^ Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council. "Edict of Torda" (DOC). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
29.Jump up ^ Karl Heussi, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, 11. Auflage (1956), Tübingen (Germany), pp. 396-397
30.Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Ciffs, N.J., p. 124
31.Jump up ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
32.^ Jump up to: a b Rogers, Horatio, 2009. Mary Dyer of Rhode Island: The Quaker Martyr That Was Hanged on Boston Common, 1 June 1660 pp.1–2. BiblioBazaar, LLC
33.Jump up ^ Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: a comprehensive encyclopedia. Google Books. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
34.^ Jump up to: a b Zimmerman, Mark, Symbol of Enduring Freedom, p. 19, Columbia Magazine, March 2010
35.Jump up ^ Brugger, Robert J. (1988). Maryland: A Middle Temperament. , p 21, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-3399-X.
36.Jump up ^ Finkelman, Paul, Maryland Toleration Act, The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, New York: CRC Press. ISBN 0-415-94342-6.
37.^ Jump up to: a b id=6ybHa6D24qQC&pg=PA78&dq=henry+darnall&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3&ei=fcKDS_qNIKjoygTH_rnxCg&cd=5#v=onepage&q=henry%20darnall&f=false Roark, Elisabeth Louise, p.78, Artists of colonial America Retrieved 22 February 2010
38.Jump up ^ Christopher Fennell (1998), Plymouth Colony Legal Structure (http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html)
39.Jump up ^ Hanover Historical Texts Project (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html)
40.Jump up ^ M. Schmidt, Pilgerväter, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Tübingen (Germany), Band V (1961), col. 384
41.Jump up ^ M. Schmidt, Hooker, Thomas, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band III (1959), col. 449
42.Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 74-75, 99, 102-105, 113-115
43.Jump up ^ Edwin S. Gaustad (1999), Liberty of Conscience: Roger Williams in America, Judson Press, Valley Forge
44.Jump up ^ Hans Fantel (1974), William Penn: Apostel of Dissent, William Morrow & Co., New York, N.Y.
45.Jump up ^ Heinrich Bornkamm, Toleranz. In der Geschichte der Christenheit, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band VI (1962), col. 943
46.Jump up ^ Robert Middlekauff (2005), The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, Revised and Expanded Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-531588-2, p. 635
47.Jump up ^ Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere. 2.2.2 Headcoverings. Parliament of Canada. Publication No. 2011-60-E. Published 2011-07-25. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
48.Jump up ^ "A/RES/36/55. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". United Nations. 25 November 1981. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
49.Jump up ^ "CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18". Minorityrights.org.
50.^ Jump up to: a b c International Federation for Human Rights (1 August 2003). "Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran" (PDF). fdih.org. Retrieved 3 March 2009.
51.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right" (PDF). Retrieved 3 March 2009.
52.Jump up ^ "The Constitution Guarantees Freedom From Religion". Freedom From Religion Foundation. August 28, 2000. Retrieved December 27, 2012.
53.Jump up ^ Elena Garcia, Atheist Billboard Hits Idaho, 10 March 2009, The Christian Post.
54.Jump up ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.643-649
55.Jump up ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.647
56.^ Jump up to: a b "Hindu Beliefs". religionfacts.com.
57.Jump up ^ "Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Global restrictions on Religion (2009" http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport1.pdf
58.Jump up ^ "Police arrest 5 women at Western Wall for wearing tallitot" Jerusalem Post (Apr 11, 2013)
59.Jump up ^ "Maltz, Judy 'Non-Orthodox Jews prohibited from praying in Knesset synagogue' (Nov 26, 2014) Haaretz" http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.628571
60.^ Jump up to: a b c "Declaration on religious freedom – Dignitatis humanae". Vatican.va. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
61.Jump up ^ Pope Pius IX. "THE SYLLABUS". Global Catholic Neetwork.
62.Jump up ^ "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may", the eleventh Article of Faith.
63.Jump up ^ Mutua, Makau. 2004. Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
64.Jump up ^ J. D. Van der Vyver; John Witte (1996). Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives 2. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. [1]. ISBN 90-411-0177-2.
65.Jump up ^ Introduction | Breaking India
66.Jump up ^ Joel H. Spring (2001). Globalization and educational rights: an intercivilizational analysis. Routledge. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-8058-3882-4.
67.Jump up ^ United States of America, Department of State. "2010 International Religious Freedom Report". International Religious Freedom Report. US Department of State. Retrieved 15 February 2012.
68.Jump up ^ Islam and Belief: At Home with Religious Freedom, Abdullah Saeed (2014): 8.
69.Jump up ^ Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (2007). "A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran" (PDF). Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-11-27. Retrieved 3 March 2007.
70.Jump up ^ Mayton, Joseph (19 December 2006). "Egypt's Bahais denied citizenship rights". Middle East Times. Archived from the original on 2009-04-06. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
71.Jump up ^ Otterman, Sharon (17 December 2006). "Court denies Bahai couple document IDs". The Washington Times. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
72.^ Jump up to: a b c Nkrumah, Gamal (21 December 2006). "Rendered faithless and stateless". Al-Ahram weekly. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
73.Jump up ^ "US State Department report on Greece". State.gov. 8 November 2005. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
74.Jump up ^ Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief. p. 652. ISBN 978-90-04-13783-7.
75.Jump up ^ Sanu, Sankrant (2006). "Re-examining Religious Freedom" (PDF). Manushi. Retrieved 26 July 2008.
76.Jump up ^ "No place to call home" (PDF). Christian Solidarity Worldwide. 29 April 2008.
77.Jump up ^ [2] from "Leaving Islam: Apostates speak out" by Ibn Warraq
78.^ Jump up to: a b Heffening, W. "Murtadd". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Encyclopaedia of Islam Online Edition. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.
79.Jump up ^ Adbul Qadir Oudah (1999). Kitab Bhavan. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan. ISBN 81-7151-273-9., Volume II. pp. 258–262; Volume IV. pp. 19–21
80.Jump up ^ S. A. Rahman (2007). "Summary and Conclusions". Punishment of Apostasy in Islam. The Other Press. pp. 132–142. ISBN 978-983-9541-49-6.
81.Jump up ^ Pencovic v. Pencovic, 45 Cal. 2d 67 (1955).
82.Jump up ^ Criminal Law and Procedure, Daniel E. Hall. Cengage Learning, July 2008. p. 266. [3]
83.Jump up ^ "Gesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung". Bundesrecht.juris.de. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
84.Jump up ^ Bundesgesetz 1985 über die religiöse Kindererziehung (pdf)
85.Jump up ^ "Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Art 303: Religiöse Erziehung". Gesetze.ch. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
86.Jump up ^ Margery Post Abbott (2011). Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers). Scarecrow Press. pp. 102. ISBN 978-0-8108-7088-8.
87.Jump up ^ Religious Freedom Day, 2006 – A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America, Religious Freedom Day, 2001 – Proclamation by the President of the United States of America 15 January 2001
88.Jump up ^ "US commission names 14 worst violators of religious freedom". Christianity Today. 29 April 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
 ^ "USCIRF Identifies World's Worst Religious Freedom Violators: Egypt Cited for First Time" (Press release). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 28 April 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
 ^ Annual Report 2011 (PDF) (Report). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. May 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
89.Jump up ^ "France Passes Religious Symbol Ban". Christianity Today. 9 February 2004. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
90.Jump up ^ "The Islamic veil across Europe". BBC News. 17 November 2006. Retrieved 2 December 2006.
91.Jump up ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved 4 July 2009.
92.^ Jump up to: a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Executive summary)". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. Retrieved 29 December 2009.
93.^ Jump up to: a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Full report)" (PDF). The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. Retrieved 12 September 2013.
94.^ Jump up to: a b "Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities". Pew Forum. 26 Feb 2015.
95.Jump up ^ Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion (Report). Pew Research Center. September 20, 2012.
96.Jump up ^ "Table: Social Hostilities Index by country" (PDF). Pew Research Center. 2012.
Further reading[edit]
Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall. The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press, 2009).
Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3.
Beneke, Chris (20 September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
Curry, Thomas J. (19 December 1989). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (19 December 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
Frost, J. William (1990) A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in Pennsylvania (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).
Gaustad, Edwin S. (2004, 2nd ed.) Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776–1826 (Waco: Baylor University Press).
Hamilton, Marci A. (17 June 2005). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8.
Hasson, Kevin 'Seamus', The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America, Encounter Books, 2005, ISBN 1-59403-083-9
McLoughlin, William G. (1971). New England Dissent: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State (2 VOLS.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5.
Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Stokes, Anson Phelps (1950) Church and State in the United States, Historic Development and Contemporary Problems of Religious Freedom under the Constitution, 3 Volumes (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers).
Stokes, DaShanne (In Press). Legalized Segregation and the Denial of Religious Freedom at the Wayback Machine (archived October 27, 2009)
Stüssi Marcel, MODELS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Switzerland, the United States, and Syria by Analytical, Methodological, and Eclectic Representation, 375 ff. (Lit 2012)., by Marcel Stüssi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
Associated Press (2002). Appeals court upholds man's use of eagle feathers for religious practices
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)
Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious
Ban on Minarets: On the Validity of a Controversial Swiss Popular Initiative (2008), , by Marcel Stuessi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
"Religious Liberty: The legal framework in selected OSCE countries." (PDF). Law Library, U.S. Library of Congress. May 2000. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2007.
Utt, Walter C. (1964). "Brickbats and Dead Cats" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 59 (4, July–August): 18–21. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
Utt, Walter C. (1960). "A Plea for the Somewhat Disorganized Man" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 55 (4, July–August): 15, 16, 29. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Utt, Walter C. (1974). "Toleration is a Nasty Word" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 69 (2, March–April): 10–13. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Zippelius, Reinhold (2009). Staat und Kirche, ch.13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-150016-9.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Freedom of religion
Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations.
The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of "Religion" in International Law Harvard Human Rights Journal article from the President and Fellows of Harvard College (2003)
Human Rights Brief No. 3, Freedom Of Religion and Belief Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
U.S. State Department country reports
Institute for Global Engagement
Institute for Religious Freedom


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Liberty













Liberty



































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Substantive human rights






























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity and politics

















































Authority control
GND: 4125186-6 ·
 NDL: 00571078
 

  


Categories: Freedom 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
Alemannisch
العربية
Беларуская
Български
བོད་ཡིག
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Føroyskt
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Latina
Magyar
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پښتو
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 16:50.
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/Freedom_of_religion







Religious intolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2015)
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
   
This article is about intolerance by or between religious communities or by communities of specific practices.For intolerance of religion itself, see Antireligion, Irreligion, and State atheism.
Religious intolerance is intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices or lack thereof.


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition
2 Historical perspectives
3 Contemporary attitude and practice
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

Definition[edit]
The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs are incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance (i.e., ideological intolerance).
Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice).
Historical perspectives[edit]
According to the 19th century British historian Arnold Toynbee, for a religious establishment to persecute another religion for being "wrong" ironically puts the persecuting religion in the wrong, undermining its own legitimacy.[1]
Contemporary attitude and practice[edit]


 This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (June 2009)
The constitutions of some countries contain provisions expressly forbidding the state from engaging in certain acts of religious intolerance or preference within its own borders; examples include The First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Other examples are Article 4 of the Basic Law of Germany, Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution of The Republic of Ireland, Article 40 of the Estonian Constitution,[2] Article 24 of the Constitution of Turkey and Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and Article 3 Section 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines.[3]
Other states, whilst not containing constitutional provisions directly related to religion, nonetheless contain provisions forbidding discrimination on religious grounds (see, for example, Article 1 of the French Constitution, article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and article 40 of the Constitution of Egypt). These constitutional provisions do not necessarily guarantee that all elements of the state remain free from religious intolerance at all times, and practice can vary widely from country to country.
Other countries, meanwhile, may allow for religious preference, for instance through the establishment of one or more state religions, but not for religious intolerance. Finland, for example, has the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Finnish Orthodox Church as its official state religions, yet upholds the right of free expression of religion in article 11 of its constitution.
Some countries retain laws forbidding defamation of religious belief. Some retain laws forbidding all forms of blasphemy (e.g., Germany where, in 2006, Manfred van H. was convicted of blasphemy against Islam). This is seen by some as official endorsement of religious intolerance, amounting to the criminalization of religious views. The connection between intolerance and blasphemy laws is closest when the laws apply to only one religion. In Pakistan blasphemy directed against either the tenets of the Qur'an or the Prophet Mohammed is punishable by either life imprisonment or death. Apostasy, the rejection of one's old religion, is also criminalized in a number of countries, notably Afghanistan with Abdul Rahman being the first to face the death penalty for converting to Christianity.
The United Nations upholds the right to free expression of religious belief in articles and 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while article 2 forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. Article 18 also allows for the freedom to change religion. The Declaration is not legally binding, however the United States chose in 1998 to pass the International Religious Freedom Act, creating the Commission on International Religious Freedom, and mandating that the United States government take action against any country found to violate the religious freedoms outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[4] The European Convention on Human Rights, which is legally binding on all European Union states (following the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the United Kingdom), makes restricting the rights of an individual to practice or change their religion illegal in article 9, and discrimination on the basis of religion illegal in article 14.
In its 2000 annual report on international religious freedom, the U.S. State Department cited China, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq and Sudan for persecuting people for their religious faith and practices. The report, which covers July 1999 through June 2000, details U.S. policy toward countries where religious freedom is violated in the view of the U.S. State Department.[5]
The advocacy group Freedom House produced a report entitled "Religious Freedom in the World" in 2000 which ranked countries according to their religious freedom. The countries receiving a score of 7, indicating those where religious freedom was least respected, were Turkmenistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Myanmar and North Korea. China was given a score of 6 overall, however Tibet was listed separately in the 7 category. Those countries receiving a score of 1, indicating the highest level of religious freedom, were Estonia, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States.
Within those countries that openly advocate religious tolerance there remain debates as to the limits of tolerance. Some individuals and religious groups, for example, retain beliefs or practices which involve acts contrary to established law, such as the use of cannabis by members of the Rastafari movement, the religious use of eagle feathers by non-Native Americans (contrary to the eagle feather law, 50 CFR 22), or the practice of polygamy amongst the LDS Church in the 19th century.[6]
The precise definition of "religion", and to which groups it applies, can also cause controversy, for example the case of Scientologists who have all rights of religious freedom in the U.S. but complain that the highest court decided not to grant the status of a Non-profit organization in several U.S. states. Attempts to legislate against acts of religious intolerance amongst citizens frequently come up against issues regarding the freedom of speech; whilst in France being convicted of incitement to religious hatred can carry a maximum of 18 months in prison. An attempt to pass a similar law by Tony Blair's Labour government in the United Kingdom had to be dropped in April, 2006 after criticism that it restricted free speech. In Victoria, Australia the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 makes illegal "conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons" on the grounds of religious belief.[citation needed]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Religion portal
Portal icon Human rights portal
Antireligion
Antitheism
Demonization
Fundamentalism
Heterosexism
Homophobia
Religious controversies
Religious discrimination
Religious freedom
Religious paranoia
Religious tolerance
Toleration
Violence against LGBT people
Specific religions
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-cult movement
Anti-Hinduism
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Semitism
Christianophobia
Islamophobia
Persecution of Baha'is
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Toynbee, Arnold (1947). "Failure of Self-Determination". In Dorothea Grace Somervell. A Study of History: Abridgment of Volumes I - VI. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 300. ISBN 0-19-505081-9.
2.Jump up ^ "Estonia - Constitution", ICL Document 28 June 1992, retrieved 25 May 2007.
3.Jump up ^ 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, CorpusJuris, retrieved 24 September 2009
4.Jump up ^ "International Religious Freedom Act of 1998", 27 January 1998, retrieved 25 May 2007.
5.Jump up ^ "United States Commission on International Freedom of Religion", Press Releases 2000, retrieved 25 May 2007.
6.Jump up ^ "Official Declaration", Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 October 1890, retrieved 25 May 2007.
Further reading[edit]
Garth Blake, "Promoting Religious Tolerance in a Multifaith Society: Religious Vilification Legislation in Australia and the UK." The Australian Law Journal, 81 (2007): 386-405.
Chopra, R.M., "A Study of Religions", 2015, Anuradha Prakashan, New Delhi, ISBN 978-93-82339-94-6
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Religious persecution.
"New Effort to Ban Religious Hate", BBC News, 11 June 2005 retrieved 25 May 2007


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious persecution and discrimination





























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Segregation in countries by type



















































































Category


Commons page


  


Categories: Religious discrimination
Religious persecution
Religion and society









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
فارسی
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 17 June 2015, at 09:39.
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/Religious_intolerance











Religious intolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2015)
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
   
This article is about intolerance by or between religious communities or by communities of specific practices.For intolerance of religion itself, see Antireligion, Irreligion, and State atheism.
Religious intolerance is intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices or lack thereof.


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition
2 Historical perspectives
3 Contemporary attitude and practice
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

Definition[edit]
The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs are incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance (i.e., ideological intolerance).
Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice).
Historical perspectives[edit]
According to the 19th century British historian Arnold Toynbee, for a religious establishment to persecute another religion for being "wrong" ironically puts the persecuting religion in the wrong, undermining its own legitimacy.[1]
Contemporary attitude and practice[edit]


 This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (June 2009)
The constitutions of some countries contain provisions expressly forbidding the state from engaging in certain acts of religious intolerance or preference within its own borders; examples include The First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Other examples are Article 4 of the Basic Law of Germany, Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution of The Republic of Ireland, Article 40 of the Estonian Constitution,[2] Article 24 of the Constitution of Turkey and Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and Article 3 Section 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines.[3]
Other states, whilst not containing constitutional provisions directly related to religion, nonetheless contain provisions forbidding discrimination on religious grounds (see, for example, Article 1 of the French Constitution, article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and article 40 of the Constitution of Egypt). These constitutional provisions do not necessarily guarantee that all elements of the state remain free from religious intolerance at all times, and practice can vary widely from country to country.
Other countries, meanwhile, may allow for religious preference, for instance through the establishment of one or more state religions, but not for religious intolerance. Finland, for example, has the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Finnish Orthodox Church as its official state religions, yet upholds the right of free expression of religion in article 11 of its constitution.
Some countries retain laws forbidding defamation of religious belief. Some retain laws forbidding all forms of blasphemy (e.g., Germany where, in 2006, Manfred van H. was convicted of blasphemy against Islam). This is seen by some as official endorsement of religious intolerance, amounting to the criminalization of religious views. The connection between intolerance and blasphemy laws is closest when the laws apply to only one religion. In Pakistan blasphemy directed against either the tenets of the Qur'an or the Prophet Mohammed is punishable by either life imprisonment or death. Apostasy, the rejection of one's old religion, is also criminalized in a number of countries, notably Afghanistan with Abdul Rahman being the first to face the death penalty for converting to Christianity.
The United Nations upholds the right to free expression of religious belief in articles and 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while article 2 forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. Article 18 also allows for the freedom to change religion. The Declaration is not legally binding, however the United States chose in 1998 to pass the International Religious Freedom Act, creating the Commission on International Religious Freedom, and mandating that the United States government take action against any country found to violate the religious freedoms outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[4] The European Convention on Human Rights, which is legally binding on all European Union states (following the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the United Kingdom), makes restricting the rights of an individual to practice or change their religion illegal in article 9, and discrimination on the basis of religion illegal in article 14.
In its 2000 annual report on international religious freedom, the U.S. State Department cited China, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq and Sudan for persecuting people for their religious faith and practices. The report, which covers July 1999 through June 2000, details U.S. policy toward countries where religious freedom is violated in the view of the U.S. State Department.[5]
The advocacy group Freedom House produced a report entitled "Religious Freedom in the World" in 2000 which ranked countries according to their religious freedom. The countries receiving a score of 7, indicating those where religious freedom was least respected, were Turkmenistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Myanmar and North Korea. China was given a score of 6 overall, however Tibet was listed separately in the 7 category. Those countries receiving a score of 1, indicating the highest level of religious freedom, were Estonia, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States.
Within those countries that openly advocate religious tolerance there remain debates as to the limits of tolerance. Some individuals and religious groups, for example, retain beliefs or practices which involve acts contrary to established law, such as the use of cannabis by members of the Rastafari movement, the religious use of eagle feathers by non-Native Americans (contrary to the eagle feather law, 50 CFR 22), or the practice of polygamy amongst the LDS Church in the 19th century.[6]
The precise definition of "religion", and to which groups it applies, can also cause controversy, for example the case of Scientologists who have all rights of religious freedom in the U.S. but complain that the highest court decided not to grant the status of a Non-profit organization in several U.S. states. Attempts to legislate against acts of religious intolerance amongst citizens frequently come up against issues regarding the freedom of speech; whilst in France being convicted of incitement to religious hatred can carry a maximum of 18 months in prison. An attempt to pass a similar law by Tony Blair's Labour government in the United Kingdom had to be dropped in April, 2006 after criticism that it restricted free speech. In Victoria, Australia the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 makes illegal "conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons" on the grounds of religious belief.[citation needed]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Religion portal
Portal icon Human rights portal
Antireligion
Antitheism
Demonization
Fundamentalism
Heterosexism
Homophobia
Religious controversies
Religious discrimination
Religious freedom
Religious paranoia
Religious tolerance
Toleration
Violence against LGBT people
Specific religions
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-cult movement
Anti-Hinduism
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Semitism
Christianophobia
Islamophobia
Persecution of Baha'is
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Toynbee, Arnold (1947). "Failure of Self-Determination". In Dorothea Grace Somervell. A Study of History: Abridgment of Volumes I - VI. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 300. ISBN 0-19-505081-9.
2.Jump up ^ "Estonia - Constitution", ICL Document 28 June 1992, retrieved 25 May 2007.
3.Jump up ^ 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, CorpusJuris, retrieved 24 September 2009
4.Jump up ^ "International Religious Freedom Act of 1998", 27 January 1998, retrieved 25 May 2007.
5.Jump up ^ "United States Commission on International Freedom of Religion", Press Releases 2000, retrieved 25 May 2007.
6.Jump up ^ "Official Declaration", Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 October 1890, retrieved 25 May 2007.
Further reading[edit]
Garth Blake, "Promoting Religious Tolerance in a Multifaith Society: Religious Vilification Legislation in Australia and the UK." The Australian Law Journal, 81 (2007): 386-405.
Chopra, R.M., "A Study of Religions", 2015, Anuradha Prakashan, New Delhi, ISBN 978-93-82339-94-6
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Religious persecution.
"New Effort to Ban Religious Hate", BBC News, 11 June 2005 retrieved 25 May 2007


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious persecution and discrimination





























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Segregation in countries by type



















































































Category


Commons page


  


Categories: Religious discrimination
Religious persecution
Religion and society









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
فارسی
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 17 June 2015, at 09:39.
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/Religious_intolerance









Lapsed Catholic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Cultural Catholic)
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Christian culture
Christian culture


Christian culture
 [hide]
Protestant culture ·
 Holidays ·
 Pop culture ·
 Mormon culture
 


Art
 [hide]
Christian symbolism ·
 Early art ·
 Christian icons ·
 Architecture
 


Literature
 [hide]
Bible fiction ·
 Christian drama ·
 Christian poetry ·
 Christian novel ·
 Christian science fiction ·
 Spiritual autobiography
 


Music
 [hide]
CCM ·
 Christmas music ·
 Church music ·
 Gospel music ·
 Liturgical music
 


History
 [hide]
Church and Civilization ·
 Eastern Orthodox History
 
Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
A lapsed Catholic is a baptised Catholic who is non-practising.[1][2] Such a person may still identify as a Catholic[1] and remains a Catholic according to canon law.[3]


Contents  [hide]
1 Interpretations
2 Catholic teaching on membership in the Church
3 History
4 Present canon law
5 Colloquial names
6 Examples in literature and entertainment
7 Cultural Catholics in the Netherlands
8 See also
9 References

Interpretations[edit]
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "lapsed" in relation to "lapsed Catholic" is "no longer believing or following the teachings of a religion".[4] Lapsing is thus not necessarily connected with a lack of belief.[5] However, Daniel Ford links being a lapsed Catholic with rejection of Catholic teaching, either totally or by being an "à la carte Catholic".[6] Other sources associate the term with abandonment of practice of the Catholic religion rather than with rejection of its doctrine. Thus the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "lapsed", again in relation to "lapsed Catholic", as "no longer involved in an activity or organization",[7] and the Oxford Dictionary speaks only of "no longer following the rules and practices of a religion or doctrine".[8] Richard John Neuhaus, quoting G.K. Chesterton's remark that a Protestant typically says he is a good Protestant, while a Catholic typically says he is a bad Catholic, says that, for many, being a lapsed Catholic is just another way of being a Catholic.[9]
Catholic teaching on membership in the Church[edit]
According to Catholic belief, baptism "seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark of belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation."[3]
From 1983 a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church was recognised in the Code of Canon Law, making defectors ineligible for the privileges of membership of the Church, such as marrying in church. This form of defection was removed from the Code in 2009, and it was no longer possible to defect formally from the Catholic Church.[10]
Even the form of censure known as excommunication does not in itself make a person an ex-Catholic: excommunicated persons are "cut off from the Church", barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, serving at the altar, etc.), but they remain Catholics.[11] They are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.
History[edit]
In the time of the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, many Christians, including clergy and even some bishops, failed to hold firm. They were referred to as the lapsi (those who had slipped and fell) as opposed to the stantes (those who stood firm).[12][13] Different attitudes developed within the Church towards the lapsed: some held they should never be readmitted to the Church before death, others were for demanding serious penance of them before readmitting them, while others again were still more lenient.[14] The First Council of Nicaea insisted that any clergy who had lapsed were not to be readmitted to clerical rank.[15]
Present canon law[edit]
Today, a Catholic who lapses to the extent of becoming an apostate, a heretic or a schismatic is automatically excommunicated,[16] and, until the excommunication is lifted, is forbidden to have any ministerial part in the celebration of Mass or other worship ceremonies, to celebrate or receive the sacraments or to exercise any Church functions.[17] This is an obligation that binds the excommunicated person. Unless the excommunication has been publicly declared by the Church and not merely incurred automatically, the excommunicated person cannot on that ground alone be publicly refused the sacraments, even by a priest who knows of it. However, to assist at the marriage of someone who has "notoriously" (i.e. consciously and publicly) rejected the Catholic faith, a priest needs the permission of the ordinary and the same promises required by spouses in mixed marriages are also required.[18] The Code of Canon Law lays down no particular penalty for a lapsing that consists of failure to fulfill the obligations to attend Sunday Mass[19] and to receive Communion during Eastertide.[20]
Colloquial names[edit]
Some lapsed Catholics attend Mass on special occasions like Christmas and Easter. Such lapsed Catholics are colloquially referred to by such terms as Cultural Catholics, Two-Timers, Chreasters,[21][22] C&E Catholics,[23] Poinsettia & Lily Catholics,[22] APEC (Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Easter, and Christmas), CEOs (Christmas and Easter Only), CAPE Catholics (Christmas, Ash [Wednesday], Palm [Sunday], Easter), PACE Catholics (Palm [Sunday], Ash [Wednesday], Christmas, Easter), CASE Catholics (Christmas and Sometimes Easter), CMEs (Christmas, Mother's Day and Easter), or A&P Catholics (for Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday).[24]
"Cultural Catholic" is also used to refer to a non-religious member of a historically Catholic ethnic group, such as Austrian,[25] Belgian, Croat, Czech, French, French Canadian, Filipino, Hungarian,[26] Irish, Italian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Spaniards, Slovene, Slovak and Latin Americans.
Examples in literature and entertainment[edit]
"He was of the faith chiefly in the sense that the church he currently did not attend was Catholic" (Kingsley Amis, One Fat Englishman (1963), chapter 8).
"I've usually found every Catholic family has one lapsed member, and it's often the nicest." (Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited).
"I wouldn't be a very spiritual man, right? I don't believe in God, right? Still Catholic. Because there's nothing you can do when you're Catholic. Once you've started Catholic, frankly, there's no real way to stop being Catholic. Even not believing in God isn't regarded as sufficient reason to get out of the Catholic church. You'd think it'd be fairly fundamental to the whole thing, but no. Catholicism: the stickiest, most adhesive religion in the world." (Dara O'Briain, "Live at the Apollo", July 6, 2005).
Cultural Catholics in the Netherlands[edit]
The provinces North Brabant and Limburg in the Netherlands are historically mostly Roman Catholic, therefor their people still use the term and some traditions as a base for their cultural identity rather than as a religious identity. Since the War of Independence the Catholics were systematically and official discriminated against by the Protestant government until the second half of the 20th century, which had a major influence on the economical and cultural development of the southern part of the Netherlands. From the Reformation to the 20th century, Dutch Catholics had largely been confined to certain southern areas in the Netherlands where they still tend to form a majority or large minority of the population in the southern provinces of the Netherlands, North Brabant and Limburg. However, with modern population shifts and increasing secularization, these areas tend to be less and less religious Catholic. After 1960 the emphasize on many Catholic concepts like hell, the devil, sinning and Catholic traditions like confession, kneeling, the teaching of catechism and having the hostia placed on the tongue by the priest rapidly disappeared and these concepts are nowadays seldom or not at all found within the modern Dutch Catholicism. The southern area still has original Catholic traditions like Carnival, rituals like lighting candles for special occasions and field chapels and crucifixes in the landscape, giving the southern part of the Netherlands a distinctive Catholic atmosphere, with which the population identifies in contrast to the rest of the Netherlands. The vast majority of the (self-identifying) Catholic population in the Netherlands is now largely irreligious in practice. Research among Catholics in the Netherlands in 2007 shows that only 27% of the Dutch Catholics can be regarded as a theist, 55% as an ietsist / agnostic deist and 17% as agnostic or atheist. [27]
See also[edit]
Cultural Christian
Apostasy in Christianity
Backsliding
Catholic guilt
Cafeteria Catholicism
Cafeteria Christianity
Lapsi (Christianity)
List of former Roman Catholics
Recovering Catholic
Sunday Christian
Jack Mormon
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Patricia Barbernitz (1993). Parish Ministry for Returning Catholics. Paulist Press. Retrieved 14 June 2012. ""I'm Catholic" is also the statement frequently used by some other people — those whom others might have named "inactive" Catholics, "fallen-away" or "lapsed" Catholics. For many of them, the statement remains, "I'm Catholic." It is spoken with ease, almost without thought."
2.Jump up ^ R. John Kinkel (29 September 2008). The Story of Early Christianity. Retrieved 14 June 2012. "In the old days (1950s) these people would be called backsliders, apostates, lapsed Christians, and now this label has emerged: FARC, ie fallen away Roman Catholic."
3.^ Jump up to: a b "The Sacrament of Baptism (§1272)". Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, baptism cannot be repeated."
4.Jump up ^ Merriam-Webster: "lapsed"
5.Jump up ^ Leslie John Francis, William K. Kay, William S. Campbell (editors), Research in Religious Education (Gracewing Publishing 1996 ISBN 978-0-85244342-2), p. 378
6.Jump up ^ Quotes from Daniel F. Ford, The Lapsed Catholic Catechism: "Lapsees are à la carte Catholics who pick and choose what suits them, if anything does, from the long menu of past teachings from Rome and/or other religious traditions. Some even continue to participate in orthodox Catholic rituals – e.g., getting married in church and attending the church funeral rites intended to honor the departed and comfort the family and friends left behind." "Some Lapsed Catholics are out and out atheists or agnostics. They look at arguments about God’s existence as W.H. Auden did: 'All proofs or disproofs that we tender … are returned Unopened to the sender.' Some, who do not believe in any top-tier gods like Jupiter or the God of the Old Testament, are still devotees of second-tier gods like Bacchus, the god of wine, or Venus, the goddess of carnal love. The actor Martin Sheen has described himself as 'one of those cliff-hanging Catholics. I don't believe in God, but I do believe that Mary was his mother.'"
7.Jump up ^ Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, "lapsed"
8.Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionaries: "lapsed"
9.Jump up ^ Richard John Neuhaus, Catholic Matters (Basic Books 2007 ISBN 9780465049363), p. 10
10.Jump up ^ Statement on Formal Defections
11.Jump up ^ "Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty." New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 63 (commentary on canon 11).
12.Jump up ^ Carl Sommer, We Look for a Kingdom (Ignatius Press 2007 ISBN 978-1-58617079-0), p. 248
13.Jump up ^ Frances Margaret Young, Margaret Mary Mitchell, K. Scott Bowie (editors), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge University Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-52181239-9), p. 389
14.Jump up ^ James B. North, Don Umphrey, A History of the Church (College Press 1991 ISBN 978-0-89900371-9), pp. 62-63
15.Jump up ^ Canon X of the Council of Nicaea
16.Jump up ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1364 §1
17.Jump up ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1331 §1
18.Jump up ^ John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas Joseph Green, New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-80914066-4), p. 1269
19.Jump up ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1247
20.Jump up ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 920
21.Jump up ^ "Definition of Chreaster". Unwords.com. Nanovox Productions.
22.^ Jump up to: a b "Why I hate Easter". Heart Songs:. 2002-03-31.
23.Jump up ^ "Don't be too quick to dismiss the "C&E Catholics" this Easter". Bearing Blog. 2007-03-06.
24.Jump up ^ ABC News: "Will A&P Catholics Still Flock to Church on Palm Sunday?"
25.Jump up ^ "Religion in Austria on CIA World Factbook". Retrieved December 13, 2006.
26.Jump up ^ "Magyarország Alaptörvénye" (PDF). Parlament.hu. Hungarian Parliament. Retrieved 2 August 2014.
27.Jump up ^ God in Nederland' (1996-2006), by Ronald Meester, G. Dekker, ISBN 9789025957407
  


Categories: Catholic theology and doctrine
Catholic terms
Disengagement from 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
Čeština
فارسی
한국어
Português
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 02:26.
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/Lapsed_Catholic









Lapsed Catholic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Cultural Catholic)
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Christian culture
Christian culture


Christian culture
 [hide]
Protestant culture ·
 Holidays ·
 Pop culture ·
 Mormon culture
 


Art
 [hide]
Christian symbolism ·
 Early art ·
 Christian icons ·
 Architecture
 


Literature
 [hide]
Bible fiction ·
 Christian drama ·
 Christian poetry ·
 Christian novel ·
 Christian science fiction ·
 Spiritual autobiography
 


Music
 [hide]
CCM ·
 Christmas music ·
 Church music ·
 Gospel music ·
 Liturgical music
 


History
 [hide]
Church and Civilization ·
 Eastern Orthodox History
 
Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
A lapsed Catholic is a baptised Catholic who is non-practising.[1][2] Such a person may still identify as a Catholic[1] and remains a Catholic according to canon law.[3]


Contents  [hide]
1 Interpretations
2 Catholic teaching on membership in the Church
3 History
4 Present canon law
5 Colloquial names
6 Examples in literature and entertainment
7 Cultural Catholics in the Netherlands
8 See also
9 References

Interpretations[edit]
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "lapsed" in relation to "lapsed Catholic" is "no longer believing or following the teachings of a religion".[4] Lapsing is thus not necessarily connected with a lack of belief.[5] However, Daniel Ford links being a lapsed Catholic with rejection of Catholic teaching, either totally or by being an "à la carte Catholic".[6] Other sources associate the term with abandonment of practice of the Catholic religion rather than with rejection of its doctrine. Thus the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "lapsed", again in relation to "lapsed Catholic", as "no longer involved in an activity or organization",[7] and the Oxford Dictionary speaks only of "no longer following the rules and practices of a religion or doctrine".[8] Richard John Neuhaus, quoting G.K. Chesterton's remark that a Protestant typically says he is a good Protestant, while a Catholic typically says he is a bad Catholic, says that, for many, being a lapsed Catholic is just another way of being a Catholic.[9]
Catholic teaching on membership in the Church[edit]
According to Catholic belief, baptism "seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark of belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation."[3]
From 1983 a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church was recognised in the Code of Canon Law, making defectors ineligible for the privileges of membership of the Church, such as marrying in church. This form of defection was removed from the Code in 2009, and it was no longer possible to defect formally from the Catholic Church.[10]
Even the form of censure known as excommunication does not in itself make a person an ex-Catholic: excommunicated persons are "cut off from the Church", barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, serving at the altar, etc.), but they remain Catholics.[11] They are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.
History[edit]
In the time of the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, many Christians, including clergy and even some bishops, failed to hold firm. They were referred to as the lapsi (those who had slipped and fell) as opposed to the stantes (those who stood firm).[12][13] Different attitudes developed within the Church towards the lapsed: some held they should never be readmitted to the Church before death, others were for demanding serious penance of them before readmitting them, while others again were still more lenient.[14] The First Council of Nicaea insisted that any clergy who had lapsed were not to be readmitted to clerical rank.[15]
Present canon law[edit]
Today, a Catholic who lapses to the extent of becoming an apostate, a heretic or a schismatic is automatically excommunicated,[16] and, until the excommunication is lifted, is forbidden to have any ministerial part in the celebration of Mass or other worship ceremonies, to celebrate or receive the sacraments or to exercise any Church functions.[17] This is an obligation that binds the excommunicated person. Unless the excommunication has been publicly declared by the Church and not merely incurred automatically, the excommunicated person cannot on that ground alone be publicly refused the sacraments, even by a priest who knows of it. However, to assist at the marriage of someone who has "notoriously" (i.e. consciously and publicly) rejected the Catholic faith, a priest needs the permission of the ordinary and the same promises required by spouses in mixed marriages are also required.[18] The Code of Canon Law lays down no particular penalty for a lapsing that consists of failure to fulfill the obligations to attend Sunday Mass[19] and to receive Communion during Eastertide.[20]
Colloquial names[edit]
Some lapsed Catholics attend Mass on special occasions like Christmas and Easter. Such lapsed Catholics are colloquially referred to by such terms as Cultural Catholics, Two-Timers, Chreasters,[21][22] C&E Catholics,[23] Poinsettia & Lily Catholics,[22] APEC (Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Easter, and Christmas), CEOs (Christmas and Easter Only), CAPE Catholics (Christmas, Ash [Wednesday], Palm [Sunday], Easter), PACE Catholics (Palm [Sunday], Ash [Wednesday], Christmas, Easter), CASE Catholics (Christmas and Sometimes Easter), CMEs (Christmas, Mother's Day and Easter), or A&P Catholics (for Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday).[24]
"Cultural Catholic" is also used to refer to a non-religious member of a historically Catholic ethnic group, such as Austrian,[25] Belgian, Croat, Czech, French, French Canadian, Filipino, Hungarian,[26] Irish, Italian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Spaniards, Slovene, Slovak and Latin Americans.
Examples in literature and entertainment[edit]
"He was of the faith chiefly in the sense that the church he currently did not attend was Catholic" (Kingsley Amis, One Fat Englishman (1963), chapter 8).
"I've usually found every Catholic family has one lapsed member, and it's often the nicest." (Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited).
"I wouldn't be a very spiritual man, right? I don't believe in God, right? Still Catholic. Because there's nothing you can do when you're Catholic. Once you've started Catholic, frankly, there's no real way to stop being Catholic. Even not believing in God isn't regarded as sufficient reason to get out of the Catholic church. You'd think it'd be fairly fundamental to the whole thing, but no. Catholicism: the stickiest, most adhesive religion in the world." (Dara O'Briain, "Live at the Apollo", July 6, 2005).
Cultural Catholics in the Netherlands[edit]
The provinces North Brabant and Limburg in the Netherlands are historically mostly Roman Catholic, therefor their people still use the term and some traditions as a base for their cultural identity rather than as a religious identity. Since the War of Independence the Catholics were systematically and official discriminated against by the Protestant government until the second half of the 20th century, which had a major influence on the economical and cultural development of the southern part of the Netherlands. From the Reformation to the 20th century, Dutch Catholics had largely been confined to certain southern areas in the Netherlands where they still tend to form a majority or large minority of the population in the southern provinces of the Netherlands, North Brabant and Limburg. However, with modern population shifts and increasing secularization, these areas tend to be less and less religious Catholic. After 1960 the emphasize on many Catholic concepts like hell, the devil, sinning and Catholic traditions like confession, kneeling, the teaching of catechism and having the hostia placed on the tongue by the priest rapidly disappeared and these concepts are nowadays seldom or not at all found within the modern Dutch Catholicism. The southern area still has original Catholic traditions like Carnival, rituals like lighting candles for special occasions and field chapels and crucifixes in the landscape, giving the southern part of the Netherlands a distinctive Catholic atmosphere, with which the population identifies in contrast to the rest of the Netherlands. The vast majority of the (self-identifying) Catholic population in the Netherlands is now largely irreligious in practice. Research among Catholics in the Netherlands in 2007 shows that only 27% of the Dutch Catholics can be regarded as a theist, 55% as an ietsist / agnostic deist and 17% as agnostic or atheist. [27]
See also[edit]
Cultural Christian
Apostasy in Christianity
Backsliding
Catholic guilt
Cafeteria Catholicism
Cafeteria Christianity
Lapsi (Christianity)
List of former Roman Catholics
Recovering Catholic
Sunday Christian
Jack Mormon
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Patricia Barbernitz (1993). Parish Ministry for Returning Catholics. Paulist Press. Retrieved 14 June 2012. ""I'm Catholic" is also the statement frequently used by some other people — those whom others might have named "inactive" Catholics, "fallen-away" or "lapsed" Catholics. For many of them, the statement remains, "I'm Catholic." It is spoken with ease, almost without thought."
2.Jump up ^ R. John Kinkel (29 September 2008). The Story of Early Christianity. Retrieved 14 June 2012. "In the old days (1950s) these people would be called backsliders, apostates, lapsed Christians, and now this label has emerged: FARC, ie fallen away Roman Catholic."
3.^ Jump up to: a b "The Sacrament of Baptism (§1272)". Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, baptism cannot be repeated."
4.Jump up ^ Merriam-Webster: "lapsed"
5.Jump up ^ Leslie John Francis, William K. Kay, William S. Campbell (editors), Research in Religious Education (Gracewing Publishing 1996 ISBN 978-0-85244342-2), p. 378
6.Jump up ^ Quotes from Daniel F. Ford, The Lapsed Catholic Catechism: "Lapsees are à la carte Catholics who pick and choose what suits them, if anything does, from the long menu of past teachings from Rome and/or other religious traditions. Some even continue to participate in orthodox Catholic rituals – e.g., getting married in church and attending the church funeral rites intended to honor the departed and comfort the family and friends left behind." "Some Lapsed Catholics are out and out atheists or agnostics. They look at arguments about God’s existence as W.H. Auden did: 'All proofs or disproofs that we tender … are returned Unopened to the sender.' Some, who do not believe in any top-tier gods like Jupiter or the God of the Old Testament, are still devotees of second-tier gods like Bacchus, the god of wine, or Venus, the goddess of carnal love. The actor Martin Sheen has described himself as 'one of those cliff-hanging Catholics. I don't believe in God, but I do believe that Mary was his mother.'"
7.Jump up ^ Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, "lapsed"
8.Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionaries: "lapsed"
9.Jump up ^ Richard John Neuhaus, Catholic Matters (Basic Books 2007 ISBN 9780465049363), p. 10
10.Jump up ^ Statement on Formal Defections
11.Jump up ^ "Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty." New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 63 (commentary on canon 11).
12.Jump up ^ Carl Sommer, We Look for a Kingdom (Ignatius Press 2007 ISBN 978-1-58617079-0), p. 248
13.Jump up ^ Frances Margaret Young, Margaret Mary Mitchell, K. Scott Bowie (editors), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge University Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-52181239-9), p. 389
14.Jump up ^ James B. North, Don Umphrey, A History of the Church (College Press 1991 ISBN 978-0-89900371-9), pp. 62-63
15.Jump up ^ Canon X of the Council of Nicaea
16.Jump up ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1364 §1
17.Jump up ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1331 §1
18.Jump up ^ John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas Joseph Green, New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-80914066-4), p. 1269
19.Jump up ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1247
20.Jump up ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 920
21.Jump up ^ "Definition of Chreaster". Unwords.com. Nanovox Productions.
22.^ Jump up to: a b "Why I hate Easter". Heart Songs:. 2002-03-31.
23.Jump up ^ "Don't be too quick to dismiss the "C&E Catholics" this Easter". Bearing Blog. 2007-03-06.
24.Jump up ^ ABC News: "Will A&P Catholics Still Flock to Church on Palm Sunday?"
25.Jump up ^ "Religion in Austria on CIA World Factbook". Retrieved December 13, 2006.
26.Jump up ^ "Magyarország Alaptörvénye" (PDF). Parlament.hu. Hungarian Parliament. Retrieved 2 August 2014.
27.Jump up ^ God in Nederland' (1996-2006), by Ronald Meester, G. Dekker, ISBN 9789025957407
  


Categories: Catholic theology and doctrine
Catholic terms
Disengagement from 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
Čeština
فارسی
한국어
Português
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 02:26.
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/Lapsed_Catholic









Jack Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009)
The term Jack Mormon is a slang term originating in nineteenth-century America. It was originally used to describe a person who was not a baptized member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints but who was friendly to Church members and Mormonism, sympathized with them, and/or took an active interest in their belief system. Sometime in the early- to mid-twentieth century, however, the term began to refer to an individual deemed by adherents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) to be an inactive or lapsed member of the LDS Church who, despite his personal religious viewpoint, maintained good relations with and positive feelings toward the LDS Church.[1][2]


Contents  [hide]
1 Origin of the term
2 Political usage
3 Change in terminology
4 Use in popular culture
5 See also
6 Notes
7 External links

Origin of the term[edit]
The first publicly recorded use of the term was in 1846 by Thomas C. Sharp,[3] editor of the Warsaw Signal, who referred to "A certain Jack-mormon of Hancock county..."[1] Sharp also coined the term "Jack-Mason" to refer to those who were sympathetic toward Freemasons in the Anti-Masonic political movement. These sympathetic non-Mormons included Nauvoo Justice of the Peace Daniel H. Wells, who later joined the church, and soldier and diplomat Thomas L. Kane. Kane was identified as a sympathetic Jack Mormon by US Army officials and the media, some of whom asserted that he had been secretly baptised into the LDS faith. However friendly toward the LDS people, Kane remained a Presbyterian all of his life.
Several LDS historians[who?] believe that the term was used prior to Sharp's mention, and has ties to sympathetic Democrats in Jackson County, Missouri. Their belief is that the term originated in Missouri, during the Kirtland period of Latter Day Saint history, circa 1834. When Church members were expelled from Jackson County by a mob, many fled to Clay County, where local citizens, mostly Democrats, were sympathetic and friendly toward the Mormons. These citizens were pejoratively labeled "Jack" Mormons by the antagonistic citizens of Jackson County.
Political usage[edit]


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011)
LDS Church membership was made up predominantly of liberal-leaning Democrats until the early 1900s, possibly due to anti-Mormon positions held by the Republican party during the latter half of the 19th Century. However, the church's conservative positions on social issues such as sexuality, drug use, traditional family values, and the role of religion in government caused large numbers of previously Democratic Latter-day Saints to shift to the Republican Party by the late 1970s. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the LDS church took a stand against the Equal Rights Amendment, and again increased the population's participation in the Republican party. At that time, many members who were registered Democrats were called "Jack Mormons", not as a negative term, but to distinguish them as traditional liberal Democrats. Because of the negative connotation of the term's modern context, this usage was short-lived. An alternative theory and contemporary usage holds that the term refers to a person who is a Mormon in "name only" (as in having a common Mormon surname) as though the "Mormon" label were nothing but a surname to this individual.
The term was made popular by heavyweight champion William Harrison "Jack" Dempsey, born in Manassa, Colorado, on June 24, 1895. During the 1920s the greatest American sports hero of the day was undoubtedly Babe Ruth; his closest rival was Dempsey, a tough heavyweight boxer from the mining West. Around 1880 an LDS Church missionary converted his parents and they moved to the Mormon village of Manassa. While his father parted ways with the church, his mother remained a devoted member. Jack would write, "I'm proud to be a Mormon. And ashamed to be the Jack Mormon that I am."[4]
Change in terminology[edit]
The term is now used to describe a baptized member of the LDS Church who rarely or never practices the religion, but is still friendly toward the church. Alternatively, it can be used for someone that is of Mormon descent but unbaptized or non-religious. Some Jack Mormons still support the goals and beliefs of the LDS Church, but for various reasons choose not to attend services or participate in church activities. They are also colloquially known as Cultural Mormons, the LDS equivalent of a lapsed Catholic, a "Christmas and Easter Christian" (or based on an adage "Once a Baptist, Always a Baptist") and a "Yom Kippur Jew" (or sometimes "ethnic Jew").
Some modern LDS youth today use the term to describe a baptized member who chooses not to follow the ethical, moral and cultural guidelines common to Mormons. These guidelines include refraining from profanity and pre-marital sex. Other common cultural limitations include following the Word of Wisdom by consuming a healthy diet, seeking exercise, and avoiding the use of drugs, tobacco, alcohol, and coffee and tea. Often such individuals are noticeable for public consumption of tobacco or alcohol.
It is unclear how or why the meaning of the term changed to its current usage, which is almost the reverse of its original meaning. Preston Nibley, a mid-20th century LDS author who had a large impact on Mormon culture and folklore, mentioned the term in its modern context during the late 1940s and used it extensively in the 1950s. Today "Jack Mormon" is less commonly used, but using the term is not offensive when said in a self-joking or humorous sense.
Use in popular culture[edit]
The term "Jack Mormon" was used by author Edward Abbey in his novel The Monkey Wrench Gang to describe a character, Seldom Seen Smith, who was a Mormon and had many wives, but was not active in the LDS Church nor its belief system: "Born by chance into membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Smith was on lifetime sabbatical from his religion. He was a jack Mormon. A jack Mormon is to a decent Mormon what a jackrabbit is to a cottontail."[5]
In the play Angels In America by Tony Kushner, the character Harper Pitt identifies herself as a Jack Mormon, and postulates an alternate explanation for the origin of the term: "Like jack rabbit...I ran."
The term is used in its modern meaning by Wallace Stegner in his 1979 novel Recapitulation, set in Salt Lake City.
Jerry Joseph and the Jackmormons is a popular rock band from Portland, Oregon in the United States.
Jack Mormon Coffee Company is a Salt Lake based coffee roaster, located in the Historic Avenues district.
See also[edit]

Portal icon Latter-day Saints portal
Antinomianism
Cafeteria Christianity
Cultural Catholic
Cultural Christian
Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Humanistic Judaism
Lapsed Catholic
Moralistic therapeutic deism
Sunday Christian
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Bagley, Pat (January 13, 2008), "'Jack Mormon' once meant something else", The Salt Lake Tribune: B4, retrieved 2013-09-20
2.Jump up ^ Stack, Peggy Fletcher (23 September 2011). "Active, inactive – do Mormon labels work or wound?". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
3.Jump up ^ Illinois State Register, 1844-11-01; also reproduced in Nauvoo Neighbor, 1844-11-13.
4.Jump up ^ Nichols, Jeffrey D. (March 1995). "Jack Dempsey Loved Fighting, Mining, and Cowboying". History Blazer. Utah State Historical Society, Utah.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2012.
5.Jump up ^ Abbey, Edward (1985), The Monkey Wrench Gang
External links[edit]
 The dictionary definition of Jack Mormon at Wiktionary



[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
"Mormon-nomers"


Mormons ·
 Cultural Mormon ·
 Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood ·
 Less-active Mormon ·
 Jack Mormon ·
 Ex-Mormon ·
 Anti-Mormon
 

Latter-day Saints Portal
 

  


Categories: Latter Day Saints
Subcultures of religious movements
Latter Day Saint terms








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
Català
Edit links
This page was last modified on 29 December 2014, at 16:06.
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/Jack_Mormon










Jack Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009)
The term Jack Mormon is a slang term originating in nineteenth-century America. It was originally used to describe a person who was not a baptized member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints but who was friendly to Church members and Mormonism, sympathized with them, and/or took an active interest in their belief system. Sometime in the early- to mid-twentieth century, however, the term began to refer to an individual deemed by adherents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) to be an inactive or lapsed member of the LDS Church who, despite his personal religious viewpoint, maintained good relations with and positive feelings toward the LDS Church.[1][2]


Contents  [hide]
1 Origin of the term
2 Political usage
3 Change in terminology
4 Use in popular culture
5 See also
6 Notes
7 External links

Origin of the term[edit]
The first publicly recorded use of the term was in 1846 by Thomas C. Sharp,[3] editor of the Warsaw Signal, who referred to "A certain Jack-mormon of Hancock county..."[1] Sharp also coined the term "Jack-Mason" to refer to those who were sympathetic toward Freemasons in the Anti-Masonic political movement. These sympathetic non-Mormons included Nauvoo Justice of the Peace Daniel H. Wells, who later joined the church, and soldier and diplomat Thomas L. Kane. Kane was identified as a sympathetic Jack Mormon by US Army officials and the media, some of whom asserted that he had been secretly baptised into the LDS faith. However friendly toward the LDS people, Kane remained a Presbyterian all of his life.
Several LDS historians[who?] believe that the term was used prior to Sharp's mention, and has ties to sympathetic Democrats in Jackson County, Missouri. Their belief is that the term originated in Missouri, during the Kirtland period of Latter Day Saint history, circa 1834. When Church members were expelled from Jackson County by a mob, many fled to Clay County, where local citizens, mostly Democrats, were sympathetic and friendly toward the Mormons. These citizens were pejoratively labeled "Jack" Mormons by the antagonistic citizens of Jackson County.
Political usage[edit]


 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011)
LDS Church membership was made up predominantly of liberal-leaning Democrats until the early 1900s, possibly due to anti-Mormon positions held by the Republican party during the latter half of the 19th Century. However, the church's conservative positions on social issues such as sexuality, drug use, traditional family values, and the role of religion in government caused large numbers of previously Democratic Latter-day Saints to shift to the Republican Party by the late 1970s. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the LDS church took a stand against the Equal Rights Amendment, and again increased the population's participation in the Republican party. At that time, many members who were registered Democrats were called "Jack Mormons", not as a negative term, but to distinguish them as traditional liberal Democrats. Because of the negative connotation of the term's modern context, this usage was short-lived. An alternative theory and contemporary usage holds that the term refers to a person who is a Mormon in "name only" (as in having a common Mormon surname) as though the "Mormon" label were nothing but a surname to this individual.
The term was made popular by heavyweight champion William Harrison "Jack" Dempsey, born in Manassa, Colorado, on June 24, 1895. During the 1920s the greatest American sports hero of the day was undoubtedly Babe Ruth; his closest rival was Dempsey, a tough heavyweight boxer from the mining West. Around 1880 an LDS Church missionary converted his parents and they moved to the Mormon village of Manassa. While his father parted ways with the church, his mother remained a devoted member. Jack would write, "I'm proud to be a Mormon. And ashamed to be the Jack Mormon that I am."[4]
Change in terminology[edit]
The term is now used to describe a baptized member of the LDS Church who rarely or never practices the religion, but is still friendly toward the church. Alternatively, it can be used for someone that is of Mormon descent but unbaptized or non-religious. Some Jack Mormons still support the goals and beliefs of the LDS Church, but for various reasons choose not to attend services or participate in church activities. They are also colloquially known as Cultural Mormons, the LDS equivalent of a lapsed Catholic, a "Christmas and Easter Christian" (or based on an adage "Once a Baptist, Always a Baptist") and a "Yom Kippur Jew" (or sometimes "ethnic Jew").
Some modern LDS youth today use the term to describe a baptized member who chooses not to follow the ethical, moral and cultural guidelines common to Mormons. These guidelines include refraining from profanity and pre-marital sex. Other common cultural limitations include following the Word of Wisdom by consuming a healthy diet, seeking exercise, and avoiding the use of drugs, tobacco, alcohol, and coffee and tea. Often such individuals are noticeable for public consumption of tobacco or alcohol.
It is unclear how or why the meaning of the term changed to its current usage, which is almost the reverse of its original meaning. Preston Nibley, a mid-20th century LDS author who had a large impact on Mormon culture and folklore, mentioned the term in its modern context during the late 1940s and used it extensively in the 1950s. Today "Jack Mormon" is less commonly used, but using the term is not offensive when said in a self-joking or humorous sense.
Use in popular culture[edit]
The term "Jack Mormon" was used by author Edward Abbey in his novel The Monkey Wrench Gang to describe a character, Seldom Seen Smith, who was a Mormon and had many wives, but was not active in the LDS Church nor its belief system: "Born by chance into membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Smith was on lifetime sabbatical from his religion. He was a jack Mormon. A jack Mormon is to a decent Mormon what a jackrabbit is to a cottontail."[5]
In the play Angels In America by Tony Kushner, the character Harper Pitt identifies herself as a Jack Mormon, and postulates an alternate explanation for the origin of the term: "Like jack rabbit...I ran."
The term is used in its modern meaning by Wallace Stegner in his 1979 novel Recapitulation, set in Salt Lake City.
Jerry Joseph and the Jackmormons is a popular rock band from Portland, Oregon in the United States.
Jack Mormon Coffee Company is a Salt Lake based coffee roaster, located in the Historic Avenues district.
See also[edit]

Portal icon Latter-day Saints portal
Antinomianism
Cafeteria Christianity
Cultural Catholic
Cultural Christian
Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Humanistic Judaism
Lapsed Catholic
Moralistic therapeutic deism
Sunday Christian
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Bagley, Pat (January 13, 2008), "'Jack Mormon' once meant something else", The Salt Lake Tribune: B4, retrieved 2013-09-20
2.Jump up ^ Stack, Peggy Fletcher (23 September 2011). "Active, inactive – do Mormon labels work or wound?". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
3.Jump up ^ Illinois State Register, 1844-11-01; also reproduced in Nauvoo Neighbor, 1844-11-13.
4.Jump up ^ Nichols, Jeffrey D. (March 1995). "Jack Dempsey Loved Fighting, Mining, and Cowboying". History Blazer. Utah State Historical Society, Utah.gov. Retrieved June 22, 2012.
5.Jump up ^ Abbey, Edward (1985), The Monkey Wrench Gang
External links[edit]
 The dictionary definition of Jack Mormon at Wiktionary



[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
"Mormon-nomers"


Mormons ·
 Cultural Mormon ·
 Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood ·
 Less-active Mormon ·
 Jack Mormon ·
 Ex-Mormon ·
 Anti-Mormon
 

Latter-day Saints Portal
 

  


Categories: Latter Day Saints
Subcultures of religious movements
Latter Day Saint terms








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
Català
Edit links
This page was last modified on 29 December 2014, at 16:06.
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/Jack_Mormon









Cultural Christian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Christian culture
Christian culture


Christian culture
 [hide]
Protestant culture ·
 Holidays ·
 Pop culture ·
 Mormon culture
 


Art
 [hide]
Christian symbolism ·
 Early art ·
 Christian icons ·
 Architecture
 


Literature
 [hide]
Bible fiction ·
 Christian drama ·
 Christian poetry ·
 Christian novel ·
 Christian science fiction ·
 Spiritual autobiography
 


Music
 [hide]
CCM ·
 Christmas music ·
 Church music ·
 Gospel music ·
 Liturgical music
 


History
 [hide]
Church and Civilization ·
 Eastern Orthodox History
 
Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Cultural Christians are individuals who identify themselves with Christian culture while not being religious Christians. This kind of identification may be due to family background, personal experiences, the social and cultural environment in which they grew up, etc.[1]
Contrasting terms are "biblical Christian",[2] "committed Christian",[3] or "believing Christian".[4]


Contents  [hide]
1 Cultural Christians in China
2 Cultural Christians in the Netherlands
3 See also
4 References

Cultural Christians in China[edit]
Traditionally, Christianity has been considered a 'foreign religion' in China, including all the negative connotations of foreignness common in China. This attitude only started to change at the end of the 20th century. In China, the term "Cultural Christians" (Chinese: 文化基督徒; pinyin: wénhuà jīdūtú) can refer to Chinese intellectuals devoted to the study of Christian theology and ethics. A small number of them are openly religious, some others keep their religiousness secret to protect their academic positions in Communist China, some express sympathy with Christianity but do not associate themselves with it, while the majority are non-believers. Liu Xiaofeng is the best known Chinese cultural Christian of the first type.[5]
Cultural Christians in the Netherlands[edit]
The provinces North Brabant and Limburg in the Netherlands are historically mostly Roman Catholic, therefore their people still use the term and some traditions as a base for their cultural identity rather than as a religious identity. Since the War of Independence the Catholics were systematically and officially discriminated against by the Protestant government until the second half of the 20th century, which had a major influence on the economical and cultural development of the southern part of the Netherlands. From the Reformation to the 20th century, Dutch Catholics were largely confined to certain southern areas in the Netherlands, and they still tend to form a majority or large minority of the population in the southern provinces of the Netherlands, North Brabant and Limburg. However, with modern population shifts and increasing secularization, these areas tend to be less and less religious Catholic. Since 1960 the emphasis on many Catholic concepts including hell, the devil, sinning and Catholic traditions like confession, kneeling, the teaching of catechism and having the hostia placed on the tongue by the priest rapidly disappeared, and these concepts are nowadays seldom or not at all found in modern Dutch Catholicism. The southern area still has original Catholic traditions including Carnival, rituals like lighting candles for special occasions and field chapels and crucifixes in the landscape, giving the southern part of the Netherlands a distinctive Catholic atmosphere, with which the population identifies in contrast to the rest of the Netherlands. The vast majority of the (self-identifying) Catholic population in the Netherlands is now largely irreligious in practice. Research among Catholics in the Netherlands in 2007 shows that only 27% of the Dutch Catholics can be regarded as theist, 55% as ietsist / agnostic deist and 17% as agnostic or atheist.[6]
See also[edit]
Apatheism
Backslide
Cafeteria Christianity
Christian atheism
Cultural Catholic
Christian deism
Cultural Judaism
Cultural Mormon
Cultural Muslim
Emerging church
Lapsed Catholic
Moralistic therapeutic deism
Munafiq, an Islamic concept of hypocrisy
nominal Christian
Post-theism
Postchristianity
Postmodern Reformation
Rice Christian
Secular Judaism
Sunday Christian
Transtheism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ James D. Mallory, Stanley C. Baldwin, The kink and I: a psychiatrist's guide to untwisted living, 1973, p. 64
2.Jump up ^ Patrick Morley, The Man in the Mirror: Solving the 24 Problems Men Face (1997), Biblical Christian or Cultural Christian?
3.Jump up ^ Richard W. Rousseau, Christianity and Judaism: the deepening dialogue (1983), p. 112
4.Jump up ^ Postmodern theology: Christian faith in a pluralist world, Harper & Row, 1989 [1]. Joseph C. Aldrich, Life-style evangelism: crossing traditional boundaries to reach the unbelieving world , 1983 [2]
5.Jump up ^ Fredrik Fallman, "Hermeneutical conflict? Reading the Bible in Contemporary China" in: "Reading Christian Scriptures in China", pp. 49-60
6.Jump up ^ God in Nederland' (1996-2006), by Ronald Meester, G. Dekker, ISBN 9789025957407


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Culture


Outline


Sciences
Anthropology ·
 Cultural ecology ·
 Cultural neuroscience ·
 Cultural studies ·
 Culturology ·
 Culture theory
 

Subfields
Cultural anthropology ·
 Cultural economics ·
 Cultural geography ·
 Cultural history ·
 Cultural psychology ·
 Intercultural relations ·
 Philosophy of culture ·
 Semiotics of culture ·
 Sociology of culture ·
 Theology of culture
 Sound culture ·
 Visual culture
 

Types
Bullying culture ·
 Dominant culture ·
 Folk culture ·
 High culture ·
 Low culture ·
 Official culture ·
 Political culture ·
 Popular culture ·
 Primitive culture ·
 Subculture  (list)
   ·
 Super-culture ·
 Culture by location
 

Aspects
Acculturation ·
 Cultural appropriation ·
 Cultural artifact ·
 Cultural baggage ·
 Cultural behavior ·
 Cultural capital ·
 Cultural communication ·
 Cultural conflict ·
 Cultural cringe ·
 Cultural deprivation ·
 Cultural dissonance ·
 Cultural framework ·
 Cultural heritage ·
 Cultural icon ·
 Cultural identity ·
 Cultural invention ·
 Cultural landscape ·
 Cultural memory ·
 Cultural pluralism ·
 Cultural practice ·
 Cultural property ·
 Cultural region ·
 Cultural reproduction ·
 Cultural system ·
 Cultural universal ·
 Enculturation ·
 High- and low-context cultures ·
 Interculturality ·
 Material culture ·
 Non-material culture ·
 Trans-cultural diffusion ·
 Transculturation
 

Politics
Colonial mentality ·
 Consumer capitalism ·
 Cultural assimilation ·
 Cultural attaché ·
 Cultural backwardness ·
 Cultural Bolshevism ·
 Cultural conservatism ·
 Cultural diplomacy ·
 Cultural exception ·
 Cultural feminism ·
 Cultural genocide ·
 Cultural hegemony ·
 Cultural imperialism ·
 Cultural intelligence ·
 Cultural learning ·
 Cultural liberalism ·
 Cultural nationalism ·
 Cultural pessimism ·
 Cultural policy ·
 Cultural rights ·
 Cultural Zionism ·
 Culture change ·
 Culture minister ·
 Culture war ·
 Interculturalism ·
 Monoculturalism ·
 Multiculturalism
 

Related
Bennett scale ·
 Conformity ·
 Cross-cultural ·
 Cultural bias ·
 Cultural competence ·
 Cultural critic ·
 Cultural diversity ·
 Cultural lag ·
 Cultural mosaic ·
 Cultural movement ·
 Cultural relativism ·
 Cultural revolution ·
 Cultural tourism ·
 Cultural turn ·
 Cultural sensibility ·
 Culture gap ·
 Culture hero ·
 Culture industry ·
 Culture shock ·
 Death and culture ·
 Emotions and culture ·
 Intercultural competence ·
 Media culture ·
 Organizational culture ·
 Transformation of culture
 

Portal ·
 Category ·
 changes
 

  


Categories: Christian culture
Christian terminology
Western culture





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
Dansk
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 02:23.
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/Cultural_Christian










Cultural Christian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Christian culture
Christian culture


Christian culture
 [hide]
Protestant culture ·
 Holidays ·
 Pop culture ·
 Mormon culture
 


Art
 [hide]
Christian symbolism ·
 Early art ·
 Christian icons ·
 Architecture
 


Literature
 [hide]
Bible fiction ·
 Christian drama ·
 Christian poetry ·
 Christian novel ·
 Christian science fiction ·
 Spiritual autobiography
 


Music
 [hide]
CCM ·
 Christmas music ·
 Church music ·
 Gospel music ·
 Liturgical music
 


History
 [hide]
Church and Civilization ·
 Eastern Orthodox History
 
Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Cultural Christians are individuals who identify themselves with Christian culture while not being religious Christians. This kind of identification may be due to family background, personal experiences, the social and cultural environment in which they grew up, etc.[1]
Contrasting terms are "biblical Christian",[2] "committed Christian",[3] or "believing Christian".[4]


Contents  [hide]
1 Cultural Christians in China
2 Cultural Christians in the Netherlands
3 See also
4 References

Cultural Christians in China[edit]
Traditionally, Christianity has been considered a 'foreign religion' in China, including all the negative connotations of foreignness common in China. This attitude only started to change at the end of the 20th century. In China, the term "Cultural Christians" (Chinese: 文化基督徒; pinyin: wénhuà jīdūtú) can refer to Chinese intellectuals devoted to the study of Christian theology and ethics. A small number of them are openly religious, some others keep their religiousness secret to protect their academic positions in Communist China, some express sympathy with Christianity but do not associate themselves with it, while the majority are non-believers. Liu Xiaofeng is the best known Chinese cultural Christian of the first type.[5]
Cultural Christians in the Netherlands[edit]
The provinces North Brabant and Limburg in the Netherlands are historically mostly Roman Catholic, therefore their people still use the term and some traditions as a base for their cultural identity rather than as a religious identity. Since the War of Independence the Catholics were systematically and officially discriminated against by the Protestant government until the second half of the 20th century, which had a major influence on the economical and cultural development of the southern part of the Netherlands. From the Reformation to the 20th century, Dutch Catholics were largely confined to certain southern areas in the Netherlands, and they still tend to form a majority or large minority of the population in the southern provinces of the Netherlands, North Brabant and Limburg. However, with modern population shifts and increasing secularization, these areas tend to be less and less religious Catholic. Since 1960 the emphasis on many Catholic concepts including hell, the devil, sinning and Catholic traditions like confession, kneeling, the teaching of catechism and having the hostia placed on the tongue by the priest rapidly disappeared, and these concepts are nowadays seldom or not at all found in modern Dutch Catholicism. The southern area still has original Catholic traditions including Carnival, rituals like lighting candles for special occasions and field chapels and crucifixes in the landscape, giving the southern part of the Netherlands a distinctive Catholic atmosphere, with which the population identifies in contrast to the rest of the Netherlands. The vast majority of the (self-identifying) Catholic population in the Netherlands is now largely irreligious in practice. Research among Catholics in the Netherlands in 2007 shows that only 27% of the Dutch Catholics can be regarded as theist, 55% as ietsist / agnostic deist and 17% as agnostic or atheist.[6]
See also[edit]
Apatheism
Backslide
Cafeteria Christianity
Christian atheism
Cultural Catholic
Christian deism
Cultural Judaism
Cultural Mormon
Cultural Muslim
Emerging church
Lapsed Catholic
Moralistic therapeutic deism
Munafiq, an Islamic concept of hypocrisy
nominal Christian
Post-theism
Postchristianity
Postmodern Reformation
Rice Christian
Secular Judaism
Sunday Christian
Transtheism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ James D. Mallory, Stanley C. Baldwin, The kink and I: a psychiatrist's guide to untwisted living, 1973, p. 64
2.Jump up ^ Patrick Morley, The Man in the Mirror: Solving the 24 Problems Men Face (1997), Biblical Christian or Cultural Christian?
3.Jump up ^ Richard W. Rousseau, Christianity and Judaism: the deepening dialogue (1983), p. 112
4.Jump up ^ Postmodern theology: Christian faith in a pluralist world, Harper & Row, 1989 [1]. Joseph C. Aldrich, Life-style evangelism: crossing traditional boundaries to reach the unbelieving world , 1983 [2]
5.Jump up ^ Fredrik Fallman, "Hermeneutical conflict? Reading the Bible in Contemporary China" in: "Reading Christian Scriptures in China", pp. 49-60
6.Jump up ^ God in Nederland' (1996-2006), by Ronald Meester, G. Dekker, ISBN 9789025957407


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Culture


Outline


Sciences
Anthropology ·
 Cultural ecology ·
 Cultural neuroscience ·
 Cultural studies ·
 Culturology ·
 Culture theory
 

Subfields
Cultural anthropology ·
 Cultural economics ·
 Cultural geography ·
 Cultural history ·
 Cultural psychology ·
 Intercultural relations ·
 Philosophy of culture ·
 Semiotics of culture ·
 Sociology of culture ·
 Theology of culture
 Sound culture ·
 Visual culture
 

Types
Bullying culture ·
 Dominant culture ·
 Folk culture ·
 High culture ·
 Low culture ·
 Official culture ·
 Political culture ·
 Popular culture ·
 Primitive culture ·
 Subculture  (list)
   ·
 Super-culture ·
 Culture by location
 

Aspects
Acculturation ·
 Cultural appropriation ·
 Cultural artifact ·
 Cultural baggage ·
 Cultural behavior ·
 Cultural capital ·
 Cultural communication ·
 Cultural conflict ·
 Cultural cringe ·
 Cultural deprivation ·
 Cultural dissonance ·
 Cultural framework ·
 Cultural heritage ·
 Cultural icon ·
 Cultural identity ·
 Cultural invention ·
 Cultural landscape ·
 Cultural memory ·
 Cultural pluralism ·
 Cultural practice ·
 Cultural property ·
 Cultural region ·
 Cultural reproduction ·
 Cultural system ·
 Cultural universal ·
 Enculturation ·
 High- and low-context cultures ·
 Interculturality ·
 Material culture ·
 Non-material culture ·
 Trans-cultural diffusion ·
 Transculturation
 

Politics
Colonial mentality ·
 Consumer capitalism ·
 Cultural assimilation ·
 Cultural attaché ·
 Cultural backwardness ·
 Cultural Bolshevism ·
 Cultural conservatism ·
 Cultural diplomacy ·
 Cultural exception ·
 Cultural feminism ·
 Cultural genocide ·
 Cultural hegemony ·
 Cultural imperialism ·
 Cultural intelligence ·
 Cultural learning ·
 Cultural liberalism ·
 Cultural nationalism ·
 Cultural pessimism ·
 Cultural policy ·
 Cultural rights ·
 Cultural Zionism ·
 Culture change ·
 Culture minister ·
 Culture war ·
 Interculturalism ·
 Monoculturalism ·
 Multiculturalism
 

Related
Bennett scale ·
 Conformity ·
 Cross-cultural ·
 Cultural bias ·
 Cultural competence ·
 Cultural critic ·
 Cultural diversity ·
 Cultural lag ·
 Cultural mosaic ·
 Cultural movement ·
 Cultural relativism ·
 Cultural revolution ·
 Cultural tourism ·
 Cultural turn ·
 Cultural sensibility ·
 Culture gap ·
 Culture hero ·
 Culture industry ·
 Culture shock ·
 Death and culture ·
 Emotions and culture ·
 Intercultural competence ·
 Media culture ·
 Organizational culture ·
 Transformation of culture
 

Portal ·
 Category ·
 changes
 

  


Categories: Christian culture
Christian terminology
Western culture





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
Dansk
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 02:23.
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/Cultural_Christian









Ex-Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
See also List of former Latter Day Saints
Ex-Mormon refers to a disaffiliate of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any of its schismatic breakoffs, collectively called "Mormonism". Ex-Mormons, sometimes referred to as Exmo,[1] typically neither believe in nor affiliate with the LDS church. In contrast, Jack Mormons may believe but do not affiliate; and Cultural Mormons may affiliate but do not believe. The distinction is important to some ex-Mormons, many of whom see their decision to leave as morally compelling and socially risky. Many ex-Mormons experience troubles with family members who still follow Mormon teachings.[2] Aggregations of ex-Mormons may comprise a social movement.


Contents  [hide]
1 Reasons for leaving
2 Post-disaffiliation issues 2.1 Religious
2.2 Social
2.3 Psychological
3 Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons 3.1 Reasons for leaving
3.2 Consequences of leaving
4 Support groups
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

Reasons for leaving[edit]
See also Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement
Most ex-Mormons leave Mormonism and the LDS church because specific intellectual or spiritual reasons have led them to a conviction that the religion is false. The foremost reasons are disbelief both in Joseph Smith as a prophet[3][4] and in the Book of Mormon as a religious and historical document.[2][5] Reasons for this disbelief include issues with anthropological, linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence against the Book of Mormon in the New World. In addition to rejecting the Book of Mormon for such reasons, the Book of Abraham and other Mormon religious texts are rejected on similar grounds.[6][7]
Individuals leave Mormonism for a variety of reasons, although "single reason disaffiliates are rare among former Mormons."[8] Research shows that 43% of Mormon disaffiliates left due to unmet spiritual needs.[9] Other reasons for leaving may include a belief that they are in a cult, logical or intellectual appraisal, belief changes or differences, spiritual conversion to another faith, life crises, and poor or hurtful responsiveness by Mormon leaders or congregations.[10] Of former Mormons surveyed, 58% switched to other faiths or practices.[9]
Those who adopt humanist or feminist perspectives may view certain LDS doctrines (including past teachings on the spiritual status of blacks, polygamy, and the role of women in society) as racist or sexist.[11]
A minority of ex-Mormons cite their personal incompatibility with Mormon beliefs or culture.[citation needed] A 2003 Princeton Review publication quoted a student at church-owned Brigham Young University as stating, "the nonconformist will find a dull social life with difficulty finding someone that will be their friend, regardless of who they are or what they believe."[12] Liberal views and political attitudes that challenge this conformity, and occasionally sexual orientation, are cited as reasons for leaving Mormonism.[13]
In recent years the LDS Church has become more politically active, particularly with regard to legislation barring civil marriage for same-sex couples. Official LDS involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign was highly controversial, causing some LDS to stop attending church.[14]
Post-disaffiliation issues[edit]
After their decision to leave Mormonism and the LDS church, ex-Mormons typically go through an adjustment period as they re-orient their lives religiously, socially, and psychologically.
Religious[edit]
An online poll of ex-Mormons found that a majority of ex-Mormons do not self-identify as a member of another faith tradition, choosing to describe themselves as agnostic, atheist or simply ex-Mormon. Some can also become apatheist. Others either retained belief in God but not in organized religion or became adherents of other faiths.[5] Among ex-Mormons with no current religious preference, 36% continued the practice of prayer often or daily.[9] Ex-Mormon attitudes toward Mormons and Mormonism vary widely. Some ex-Mormons actively proselytize against Mormonism, while some provide only support to others leaving the religion. Other ex-Mormons prefer to avoid the subject entirely, while still others may try to encourage healthy dialogue between adherents of their new faiths and active Mormons. Attitudes of ex-Mormons also differ regarding their church membership. Some formally resign, which the LDS church refers to as "name removal," while others simply become inactive.
Social[edit]
Ex-Mormons who publicly leave Mormonism usually face social stigmatization. Although many leave to be true to themselves or to a new belief structure, they leave at a cost;[8] many leave feeling ostracized and pressured and miss out on major family events such as temple weddings. Based upon a belief that those who leave are in danger of negative eternal consequences (see Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons), Mormon peers, church officials, and family members may criticize those who leave and pressure them to return.[15] Family members of some may express only disappointment and sorrow and try to reach out in understanding to their new belief system. Some stay under threat of divorce from spouses that still believe. Still, many ex-Mormons are completely shunned and have given up spouses, children, and the ability to enter Mormon temples to witness life events of family members. Ex-Mormons in geographic locations away from major enclaves of Mormon culture such as Utah may experience less stigmatization, however.[2]
Psychological[edit]
Most ex-Mormons go through a psychological process as they leave Mormonism. Former Mormon bishop Bob McCue described his disaffiliation as recovery from cognitive dissonance.[16] Reynolds reports that leaving involves a period of intense self-doubt and depression as disaffiliates confront feelings of betrayal and loneliness, followed by self-discovery, belief exploration, spiritual guidance and connection as they leave Mormonism.[10] He argues that leaving may provide a renewed sense of self, confidence and peace.[10] One ex-Mormon compared his disaffiliation experience to leaving a cult,[17] while others called it close to overcoming mind control[18] or adjusting to life outside of religious fundamentalism.[19] Still others compare their symptoms to divorce from marriage.[20] Ex-Mormons may also have to cope with the pain of ostracism by Mormon employers, friends, spouses, and family members.[21]
Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons[edit]
Depending on the circumstances of an ex-Mormon's departure, Latter-day Saint views may range from considering them apostates to viewing them as individuals who have simply strayed from the path. The LDS church teaches that people leave for a variety of reasons.[22] Reasons range from trivial to serious (including doctrinal disagreements). Latter-day Saints view turning from the influence of the Holy Spirit as having potentially devastating spiritual consequences, and they generally hope ex-Mormons will "return to the fold."[23]
Reasons for leaving[edit]
The reasons given for a person leaving the church vary according to who is offering the opinion. LDS Sunday school manuals say members leave because of unwarranted pride, committing sins which drive them to alienation from God, or because they have taken offense to something trivial. The manuals also claim members leave because they have been deceived by Satan[22] who according to LDS scripture is actively seeking to destroy the souls of men.[24] Furthermore, those who "depart from the truth" will be judged in the final judgment[25] for falling prey to this deception.[26] The deceptions that Satan uses include acceptance of a false prophet, pride and vanity, being critical of leaders' imperfections, being offended, rationalizing disobedience, and accepting the false teachings of the world.[22]
In the Book of Mormon, a figure named Korihor[27] preaches disbelief and challenges prophecies and church leaders.[28] He then demands a miracle and is miraculously struck mute for the acts. One Mormon scholar likened the philosophical analysis employed in an essay compilation edited by an ex-Mormon to Korihor's tactics.[29] Church authority and popular LDS fiction writer Gerald N. Lund compares any reasoning that leads to disbelief in God or Mormonism to Korihor.[30]
Mormon historian B.H. Roberts wrote of an account of a member leaving the LDS church over the misspelling of a name in church records.[31] The LDS church uses the story of Frazier Eaton (who gave $700 for the Kirtland Temple but left after being unable to get a seat at the dedication ceremony) as an object lesson on how members can leave after being offended.[22][32]
Consequences of leaving[edit]
Latter-day Saints may view ex-Mormons as stronger candidates for eternal damnation based on their former devotion to Mormonism, since those who were never adherents will be judged more lightly. In addition, one who goes so far as to deny the Holy Spirit could become a son of perdition and be cast into outer darkness.[33] Outright apostasy of members will lead to a church disciplinary council, which may result in disfellowshipment or excommunication.[34] However, members who ask for their names to be removed from church records or who have joined another church are not subject to a disciplinary council.[34]
Former President of the LDS Church Brigham Young taught that members who openly disagree with church leaders are potentially cursed or condemned and that those who reject LDS doctrine or authority outright are "apostate".[35] An early Mormon epistle teaches that apostates have "fallen into the snares of the evil one."[36]
Young also said that "[if] there is a despicable character on the face of the earth, it is an apostate from this Church. He is a traitor who has deceived his best friends, betrayed his trust, and forfeited every principle of honor that God placed within him. They may think they are respected, but they are not. They are disgraced in their own eyes. There is not much honesty within them; they have forfeited their heaven, sold their birthright, and betrayed their friends."[37]
Support groups[edit]
Tight-knit local and Internet-based support group communities exist for ex-Mormons to help them cope with the strains of leaving their former belief system and building a new life.[38] Specifically, Internet-based communities range from historical forums[39] and blogs[40] to sites dedicated to recovery from Mormonism,[41] membership resignation,[42] newsgroups, and satire.[43] In 2005, ExMormon.org received over 160,000 hits per day, making it one of the most popular ex-Mormon website.[38]
See also[edit]


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Apostasy
List of former Latter Day Saints
Religious disaffiliation

Lapsed Catholic
Stay LDS
PostMormon Community
Blogs about Mormonism or Mormons
Ed Decker

References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "Deconstructor" (September 2010), "Recovery from Mormonism", ExMormon.org |chapter= ignored (help)
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Lobdell, William (December 1, 2001), "Losing Faith and Lots More", Los Angeles Times, archived from the original on 2001-12-01
3.Jump up ^ Backman, Milton V., Jr. (April 1989), "A Warning from Kirtland", Ensign: 26
4.Jump up ^ Roberts, B.H. (1902), History of the Church 1, Salt Lake City: Deseret News, p. 115
5.^ Jump up to: a b Exmormon survey from MisterPoll.com[dead link]
6.Jump up ^ "Mormons in Transition: Examining Mormonism and the Mormon Church in the light of history and the Bible", IRR.org (Institute for Religious Research) |chapter= ignored (help)[dead link][specify]
7.Jump up ^ Larson, Charles M. (1992), By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute for Religious Research, p. [page needed], ISBN 0-9620963-2-6, OCLC 26140322
8.^ Jump up to: a b Albrecht, S.L. & Bahr, H.M. (1989). Strangers Once More: Patterns of Disaffiliation from Mormonism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (28)2. 180- 200. doi:10.2307/1387058 JSTOR 1387058
9.^ Jump up to: a b c Albrecht, S.L. & Bahr, H.M. (1983). Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts & Former Mormons. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 22 D. pp. 366-379. doi:10.2307/1385774 JSTOR 1385774
10.^ Jump up to: a b c Reynolds, Leslie (1998) [1996], Mormons in Transition (Second ed.), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, p. [page needed], ISBN 978-0-8010-5811-0, OCLC 38199795
11.Jump up ^ Hanks, Maxine, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, ISBN 1-56085-014-0, OCLC 25509094
12.Jump up ^ The Best Western Colleges. The Princeton Review. 2003. p. 33. ISBN 0-375-76338-4.
13.Jump up ^ "TOPICS", The Mormon Curtain (mormoncurtain.com) |chapter= ignored (help)[unreliable source?]
14.Jump up ^ Vanocur, Chris (2008-11-10), Some LDS members leaving church over same-sex marriage controversy, Salt Lake City: KTVX
15.Jump up ^ Banks, Ben B. (November 1999), "Feed My Sheep", Ensign
16.Jump up ^ "News Summary", The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements (Rick Ross), June 2004 |chapter= ignored (help)[unreliable source?]
17.Jump up ^ Kettunen, Eric, "Recovery from Mormonism", ExMormon.org |chapter= ignored (help)
18.Jump up ^ Kettunen, Eric, "Recovery from Mormonism", ExMormon.org |chapter= ignored (help)
19.Jump up ^ Stricker, Marion (2000), The Pattern of The Double-Bind in Mormonism, Universal Publishers, p. [page needed], ISBN 978-1-58112-739-3, OCLC 46728224
20.Jump up ^ Winell, Marlene (1993), Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion, Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, p. [page needed], ISBN 978-1-879237-51-3, OCLC 30314020
21.Jump up ^ What did leaving cost you? (collection of forum posts), ExMormon.org[unreliable source?]
22.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Lesson 24: “Be Not Deceived, but Continue in Steadfastness”", Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 2003, p. 134, Publication: 35685
23.Jump up ^ Peggy Fletcher, Stack (2008-04-08), "LDS Church President Monson urges disenfranchised to return to the fold", The Salt Lake Tribune, retrieved 2008-04-26
24.Jump up ^ Doctrine and Covenants 10:27-33
25.Jump up ^ 3 Nephi 26:4
26.Jump up ^ Doctrine and Covenants 20:15
27.Jump up ^ Alma 30
28.Jump up ^ Alma 30:27
29.Jump up ^ Robinson, Stephen E. (1991), "Review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture by Dan Vogel", FARMS Review of Books (Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, BYU) 3 (1): 312–318, retrieved 2008-04-13.[dead link]
30.Jump up ^ Lund, Gerald N. (July 1992), "Countering Korihor's Philosophy", Ensign
31.Jump up ^ Roberts, B.H. (1902), History of the Church 1, p. 261
32.Jump up ^ Smith, George A. (1867), Journal of Discourses 11, p. 9
33.Jump up ^ Burton, Theodore M. (May 1981), "Light and Truth", Ensign: 28
34.^ Jump up to: a b Ballard, M. Russell (September 1990), "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings", Ensign 20 (9): 12, retrieved 2011-09-26.
35.Jump up ^ "Chapter 12: Preventing Personal Apostasy", Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997[dead link]
36.Jump up ^ Smith, Joseph F., ed. (1938), Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, p. 66, OCLC 718055
 Although sometimes mistaken for a direct quote from Joseph Smith, this passage occurs in the book as part of "Excerpts from an Epistle of the Elders of the Church in Kirtland to Their Brethren Abroad", edited by Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams as published in the Evening and Morning Star.
37.Jump up ^ Young, Brigham (1867), Journal of Discourses 12: 94 Missing or empty |title= (help)
38.^ Jump up to: a b Joffe-Walt, Chana (21 October 2005), Shunned Ex-Mormons Form Own Communities, NPR
39.Jump up ^ "Mormons in Transition: Examining Mormonism and the Mormon Church in the light of history and the Bible", IRR.org (Institute for Religious Research)[dead link][specify]
40.Jump up ^ "The Mormon Curtain: Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery", MormonCurtain.com (Michael Hoenie)
41.Jump up ^ "Recovery from Mormonism", ExMormon.org (Eric Kettunen)
42.Jump up ^ "Mormon No More: How To Resign From The Mormon Church", MormonNoMore.com
43.Jump up ^ "The Salamander Society", SalamanderSociety.com
Further reading[edit]
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (26 July 2005), "Keeping members a challenge for LDS church", Salt Lake Tribune
External links[edit]
Opposing Views: Latter Day Saints at DMOZ
The Exmormon Foundation - an organization dedicated to supporting those in transition from Mormonism
Recovery from Mormonism - the most prominent ex-Mormon community on the web
MormonNoMore - Information on how to resign from the LDS Church
Utah Lighthouse Ministry - Founded by ex-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner





[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
"Mormon-nomers"


Mormons ·
 Cultural Mormon ·
 Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood ·
 Less-active Mormon ·
 Jack Mormon ·
 Ex-Mormon ·
 Anti-Mormon
 

Latter-day Saints Portal
 

  


Categories: Disengagement from religion
Former Latter Day Saints
Latter Day Saint terms
Subcultures of religious movements















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

Edit links
This page was last modified on 6 June 2015, at 02:25.
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/Ex-Mormon











Ex-Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
See also List of former Latter Day Saints
Ex-Mormon refers to a disaffiliate of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any of its schismatic breakoffs, collectively called "Mormonism". Ex-Mormons, sometimes referred to as Exmo,[1] typically neither believe in nor affiliate with the LDS church. In contrast, Jack Mormons may believe but do not affiliate; and Cultural Mormons may affiliate but do not believe. The distinction is important to some ex-Mormons, many of whom see their decision to leave as morally compelling and socially risky. Many ex-Mormons experience troubles with family members who still follow Mormon teachings.[2] Aggregations of ex-Mormons may comprise a social movement.


Contents  [hide]
1 Reasons for leaving
2 Post-disaffiliation issues 2.1 Religious
2.2 Social
2.3 Psychological
3 Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons 3.1 Reasons for leaving
3.2 Consequences of leaving
4 Support groups
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

Reasons for leaving[edit]
See also Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement
Most ex-Mormons leave Mormonism and the LDS church because specific intellectual or spiritual reasons have led them to a conviction that the religion is false. The foremost reasons are disbelief both in Joseph Smith as a prophet[3][4] and in the Book of Mormon as a religious and historical document.[2][5] Reasons for this disbelief include issues with anthropological, linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence against the Book of Mormon in the New World. In addition to rejecting the Book of Mormon for such reasons, the Book of Abraham and other Mormon religious texts are rejected on similar grounds.[6][7]
Individuals leave Mormonism for a variety of reasons, although "single reason disaffiliates are rare among former Mormons."[8] Research shows that 43% of Mormon disaffiliates left due to unmet spiritual needs.[9] Other reasons for leaving may include a belief that they are in a cult, logical or intellectual appraisal, belief changes or differences, spiritual conversion to another faith, life crises, and poor or hurtful responsiveness by Mormon leaders or congregations.[10] Of former Mormons surveyed, 58% switched to other faiths or practices.[9]
Those who adopt humanist or feminist perspectives may view certain LDS doctrines (including past teachings on the spiritual status of blacks, polygamy, and the role of women in society) as racist or sexist.[11]
A minority of ex-Mormons cite their personal incompatibility with Mormon beliefs or culture.[citation needed] A 2003 Princeton Review publication quoted a student at church-owned Brigham Young University as stating, "the nonconformist will find a dull social life with difficulty finding someone that will be their friend, regardless of who they are or what they believe."[12] Liberal views and political attitudes that challenge this conformity, and occasionally sexual orientation, are cited as reasons for leaving Mormonism.[13]
In recent years the LDS Church has become more politically active, particularly with regard to legislation barring civil marriage for same-sex couples. Official LDS involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign was highly controversial, causing some LDS to stop attending church.[14]
Post-disaffiliation issues[edit]
After their decision to leave Mormonism and the LDS church, ex-Mormons typically go through an adjustment period as they re-orient their lives religiously, socially, and psychologically.
Religious[edit]
An online poll of ex-Mormons found that a majority of ex-Mormons do not self-identify as a member of another faith tradition, choosing to describe themselves as agnostic, atheist or simply ex-Mormon. Some can also become apatheist. Others either retained belief in God but not in organized religion or became adherents of other faiths.[5] Among ex-Mormons with no current religious preference, 36% continued the practice of prayer often or daily.[9] Ex-Mormon attitudes toward Mormons and Mormonism vary widely. Some ex-Mormons actively proselytize against Mormonism, while some provide only support to others leaving the religion. Other ex-Mormons prefer to avoid the subject entirely, while still others may try to encourage healthy dialogue between adherents of their new faiths and active Mormons. Attitudes of ex-Mormons also differ regarding their church membership. Some formally resign, which the LDS church refers to as "name removal," while others simply become inactive.
Social[edit]
Ex-Mormons who publicly leave Mormonism usually face social stigmatization. Although many leave to be true to themselves or to a new belief structure, they leave at a cost;[8] many leave feeling ostracized and pressured and miss out on major family events such as temple weddings. Based upon a belief that those who leave are in danger of negative eternal consequences (see Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons), Mormon peers, church officials, and family members may criticize those who leave and pressure them to return.[15] Family members of some may express only disappointment and sorrow and try to reach out in understanding to their new belief system. Some stay under threat of divorce from spouses that still believe. Still, many ex-Mormons are completely shunned and have given up spouses, children, and the ability to enter Mormon temples to witness life events of family members. Ex-Mormons in geographic locations away from major enclaves of Mormon culture such as Utah may experience less stigmatization, however.[2]
Psychological[edit]
Most ex-Mormons go through a psychological process as they leave Mormonism. Former Mormon bishop Bob McCue described his disaffiliation as recovery from cognitive dissonance.[16] Reynolds reports that leaving involves a period of intense self-doubt and depression as disaffiliates confront feelings of betrayal and loneliness, followed by self-discovery, belief exploration, spiritual guidance and connection as they leave Mormonism.[10] He argues that leaving may provide a renewed sense of self, confidence and peace.[10] One ex-Mormon compared his disaffiliation experience to leaving a cult,[17] while others called it close to overcoming mind control[18] or adjusting to life outside of religious fundamentalism.[19] Still others compare their symptoms to divorce from marriage.[20] Ex-Mormons may also have to cope with the pain of ostracism by Mormon employers, friends, spouses, and family members.[21]
Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons[edit]
Depending on the circumstances of an ex-Mormon's departure, Latter-day Saint views may range from considering them apostates to viewing them as individuals who have simply strayed from the path. The LDS church teaches that people leave for a variety of reasons.[22] Reasons range from trivial to serious (including doctrinal disagreements). Latter-day Saints view turning from the influence of the Holy Spirit as having potentially devastating spiritual consequences, and they generally hope ex-Mormons will "return to the fold."[23]
Reasons for leaving[edit]
The reasons given for a person leaving the church vary according to who is offering the opinion. LDS Sunday school manuals say members leave because of unwarranted pride, committing sins which drive them to alienation from God, or because they have taken offense to something trivial. The manuals also claim members leave because they have been deceived by Satan[22] who according to LDS scripture is actively seeking to destroy the souls of men.[24] Furthermore, those who "depart from the truth" will be judged in the final judgment[25] for falling prey to this deception.[26] The deceptions that Satan uses include acceptance of a false prophet, pride and vanity, being critical of leaders' imperfections, being offended, rationalizing disobedience, and accepting the false teachings of the world.[22]
In the Book of Mormon, a figure named Korihor[27] preaches disbelief and challenges prophecies and church leaders.[28] He then demands a miracle and is miraculously struck mute for the acts. One Mormon scholar likened the philosophical analysis employed in an essay compilation edited by an ex-Mormon to Korihor's tactics.[29] Church authority and popular LDS fiction writer Gerald N. Lund compares any reasoning that leads to disbelief in God or Mormonism to Korihor.[30]
Mormon historian B.H. Roberts wrote of an account of a member leaving the LDS church over the misspelling of a name in church records.[31] The LDS church uses the story of Frazier Eaton (who gave $700 for the Kirtland Temple but left after being unable to get a seat at the dedication ceremony) as an object lesson on how members can leave after being offended.[22][32]
Consequences of leaving[edit]
Latter-day Saints may view ex-Mormons as stronger candidates for eternal damnation based on their former devotion to Mormonism, since those who were never adherents will be judged more lightly. In addition, one who goes so far as to deny the Holy Spirit could become a son of perdition and be cast into outer darkness.[33] Outright apostasy of members will lead to a church disciplinary council, which may result in disfellowshipment or excommunication.[34] However, members who ask for their names to be removed from church records or who have joined another church are not subject to a disciplinary council.[34]
Former President of the LDS Church Brigham Young taught that members who openly disagree with church leaders are potentially cursed or condemned and that those who reject LDS doctrine or authority outright are "apostate".[35] An early Mormon epistle teaches that apostates have "fallen into the snares of the evil one."[36]
Young also said that "[if] there is a despicable character on the face of the earth, it is an apostate from this Church. He is a traitor who has deceived his best friends, betrayed his trust, and forfeited every principle of honor that God placed within him. They may think they are respected, but they are not. They are disgraced in their own eyes. There is not much honesty within them; they have forfeited their heaven, sold their birthright, and betrayed their friends."[37]
Support groups[edit]
Tight-knit local and Internet-based support group communities exist for ex-Mormons to help them cope with the strains of leaving their former belief system and building a new life.[38] Specifically, Internet-based communities range from historical forums[39] and blogs[40] to sites dedicated to recovery from Mormonism,[41] membership resignation,[42] newsgroups, and satire.[43] In 2005, ExMormon.org received over 160,000 hits per day, making it one of the most popular ex-Mormon website.[38]
See also[edit]


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Apostasy
List of former Latter Day Saints
Religious disaffiliation

Lapsed Catholic
Stay LDS
PostMormon Community
Blogs about Mormonism or Mormons
Ed Decker

References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "Deconstructor" (September 2010), "Recovery from Mormonism", ExMormon.org |chapter= ignored (help)
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Lobdell, William (December 1, 2001), "Losing Faith and Lots More", Los Angeles Times, archived from the original on 2001-12-01
3.Jump up ^ Backman, Milton V., Jr. (April 1989), "A Warning from Kirtland", Ensign: 26
4.Jump up ^ Roberts, B.H. (1902), History of the Church 1, Salt Lake City: Deseret News, p. 115
5.^ Jump up to: a b Exmormon survey from MisterPoll.com[dead link]
6.Jump up ^ "Mormons in Transition: Examining Mormonism and the Mormon Church in the light of history and the Bible", IRR.org (Institute for Religious Research) |chapter= ignored (help)[dead link][specify]
7.Jump up ^ Larson, Charles M. (1992), By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute for Religious Research, p. [page needed], ISBN 0-9620963-2-6, OCLC 26140322
8.^ Jump up to: a b Albrecht, S.L. & Bahr, H.M. (1989). Strangers Once More: Patterns of Disaffiliation from Mormonism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (28)2. 180- 200. doi:10.2307/1387058 JSTOR 1387058
9.^ Jump up to: a b c Albrecht, S.L. & Bahr, H.M. (1983). Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts & Former Mormons. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 22 D. pp. 366-379. doi:10.2307/1385774 JSTOR 1385774
10.^ Jump up to: a b c Reynolds, Leslie (1998) [1996], Mormons in Transition (Second ed.), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, p. [page needed], ISBN 978-0-8010-5811-0, OCLC 38199795
11.Jump up ^ Hanks, Maxine, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, ISBN 1-56085-014-0, OCLC 25509094
12.Jump up ^ The Best Western Colleges. The Princeton Review. 2003. p. 33. ISBN 0-375-76338-4.
13.Jump up ^ "TOPICS", The Mormon Curtain (mormoncurtain.com) |chapter= ignored (help)[unreliable source?]
14.Jump up ^ Vanocur, Chris (2008-11-10), Some LDS members leaving church over same-sex marriage controversy, Salt Lake City: KTVX
15.Jump up ^ Banks, Ben B. (November 1999), "Feed My Sheep", Ensign
16.Jump up ^ "News Summary", The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements (Rick Ross), June 2004 |chapter= ignored (help)[unreliable source?]
17.Jump up ^ Kettunen, Eric, "Recovery from Mormonism", ExMormon.org |chapter= ignored (help)
18.Jump up ^ Kettunen, Eric, "Recovery from Mormonism", ExMormon.org |chapter= ignored (help)
19.Jump up ^ Stricker, Marion (2000), The Pattern of The Double-Bind in Mormonism, Universal Publishers, p. [page needed], ISBN 978-1-58112-739-3, OCLC 46728224
20.Jump up ^ Winell, Marlene (1993), Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion, Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, p. [page needed], ISBN 978-1-879237-51-3, OCLC 30314020
21.Jump up ^ What did leaving cost you? (collection of forum posts), ExMormon.org[unreliable source?]
22.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Lesson 24: “Be Not Deceived, but Continue in Steadfastness”", Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 2003, p. 134, Publication: 35685
23.Jump up ^ Peggy Fletcher, Stack (2008-04-08), "LDS Church President Monson urges disenfranchised to return to the fold", The Salt Lake Tribune, retrieved 2008-04-26
24.Jump up ^ Doctrine and Covenants 10:27-33
25.Jump up ^ 3 Nephi 26:4
26.Jump up ^ Doctrine and Covenants 20:15
27.Jump up ^ Alma 30
28.Jump up ^ Alma 30:27
29.Jump up ^ Robinson, Stephen E. (1991), "Review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture by Dan Vogel", FARMS Review of Books (Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, BYU) 3 (1): 312–318, retrieved 2008-04-13.[dead link]
30.Jump up ^ Lund, Gerald N. (July 1992), "Countering Korihor's Philosophy", Ensign
31.Jump up ^ Roberts, B.H. (1902), History of the Church 1, p. 261
32.Jump up ^ Smith, George A. (1867), Journal of Discourses 11, p. 9
33.Jump up ^ Burton, Theodore M. (May 1981), "Light and Truth", Ensign: 28
34.^ Jump up to: a b Ballard, M. Russell (September 1990), "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings", Ensign 20 (9): 12, retrieved 2011-09-26.
35.Jump up ^ "Chapter 12: Preventing Personal Apostasy", Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997[dead link]
36.Jump up ^ Smith, Joseph F., ed. (1938), Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, p. 66, OCLC 718055
 Although sometimes mistaken for a direct quote from Joseph Smith, this passage occurs in the book as part of "Excerpts from an Epistle of the Elders of the Church in Kirtland to Their Brethren Abroad", edited by Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams as published in the Evening and Morning Star.
37.Jump up ^ Young, Brigham (1867), Journal of Discourses 12: 94 Missing or empty |title= (help)
38.^ Jump up to: a b Joffe-Walt, Chana (21 October 2005), Shunned Ex-Mormons Form Own Communities, NPR
39.Jump up ^ "Mormons in Transition: Examining Mormonism and the Mormon Church in the light of history and the Bible", IRR.org (Institute for Religious Research)[dead link][specify]
40.Jump up ^ "The Mormon Curtain: Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery", MormonCurtain.com (Michael Hoenie)
41.Jump up ^ "Recovery from Mormonism", ExMormon.org (Eric Kettunen)
42.Jump up ^ "Mormon No More: How To Resign From The Mormon Church", MormonNoMore.com
43.Jump up ^ "The Salamander Society", SalamanderSociety.com
Further reading[edit]
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (26 July 2005), "Keeping members a challenge for LDS church", Salt Lake Tribune
External links[edit]
Opposing Views: Latter Day Saints at DMOZ
The Exmormon Foundation - an organization dedicated to supporting those in transition from Mormonism
Recovery from Mormonism - the most prominent ex-Mormon community on the web
MormonNoMore - Information on how to resign from the LDS Church
Utah Lighthouse Ministry - Founded by ex-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner





[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
"Mormon-nomers"


Mormons ·
 Cultural Mormon ·
 Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood ·
 Less-active Mormon ·
 Jack Mormon ·
 Ex-Mormon ·
 Anti-Mormon
 

Latter-day Saints Portal
 

  


Categories: Disengagement from religion
Former Latter Day Saints
Latter Day Saint terms
Subcultures of religious movements















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

Edit links
This page was last modified on 6 June 2015, at 02:25.
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/Ex-Mormon










Cultural Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Cultural Mormon is a term used for Mormons who no longer believe some, or many, of the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), but who self-identify as Mormon.[1] Usually this is a result of having been raised in the LDS faith, or as having converted and spent a large portion of one's life as an active member of the LDS Church. Cultural Mormons may or may not be actively involved with the church, and in some cases may not even be officially members of the church.
Typically, cultural Mormons still have an appreciation for the lessons and the love they have received in the course of long church membership."[2] The Cultural Mormons do not necessarily hold anti-Mormon sentiments and often support the goals of the church. Many retain a sense of Mormon identity for life.


Contents  [hide]
1 Results of doctrinal differences
2 Internet communities 2.1 New Order Mormons
2.2 Humanistic Mormonism
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Results of doctrinal differences[edit]
The church does not regard disbelief in its doctrines as grounds for disciplinary action. Church leaders teach that doubts can be resolved by "instruction, study, and prayer, which result in increased testimony, which drives out further doubts."[3] However, disbelief in certain core doctrines (such as the role of Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer, or the leaders of the church as prophets, seers, and revelators)[4] can prevent a Cultural Mormon from participating in certain activities, such as priesthood ordinances and temple worship. As a result, some choose to keep their doubts a secret in order to continue to participate in such activities, or to avoid conflict with family and friends. In addition, disciplinary action may be taken when a member publicly opposes church doctrines (e.g. Grant Palmer, Kate Kelly, or John Dehlin).
Internet communities[edit]
Because of the fear that divulging their unorthodox beliefs will result in stigmatization and increased attention, some practicing Cultural Mormons prefer anonymity. Many therefore participate in Internet communities, where they can discuss their issues anonymously.
New Order Mormons[edit]
One such group refers to itself as the New Order Mormons,[5] a name patterned on the term New Order Amish (Amish who maintain cultural ties to their religion while not accepting some of its core tenets). This is a group of Mormons and former Mormons who no longer believe at least some of the tenets of the LDS faith, but because of family or cultural ties do not choose to completely separate themselves from the faith.
Humanistic Mormonism[edit]
Humanistic Mormonism[6][7] is a movement of Free Thinkers, Cultural Mormons, Disfellowshipped or Independents people related to LDS Church and other Latter Day Saint groups that emphasize Mormon culture and history, but do not demand belief in a supernatural god, or the historicity of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It is based on Humanism and can be summarized in some points.[citation needed]
A Mormon is someone who identifies with the history, culture and future of the LDS way of life.
People possess the power and responsibility to shape their own lives independent of supernatural authority.
Ethics and morality should serve human needs and choices should be based upon consideration of the consequences of actions rather than pre-ordained rules or commandments.
The Bible, Book of Mormon or other religious texts are purely human and natural phenomena. Biblical and other traditional texts are the products of human activity and are best understood by scientific analysis.
The Society for Humanistic Mormonism characterizes itself as a "new worldwide religion of Humanistic Mormonism" with its own "General Authorities and Administrative Officers",[8] and with its own unique doctrines, such as a "Covenant of Comedy and Humor".[9]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Latter-day Saints portal
Antinomianism
Bloggernacle
Blogs about Mormons and Mormonism
Cafeteria Christianity
Cultural Catholic
Cultural Christian
Cultural Judaism
Cultural Muslim
Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Humanistic Judaism
Lapsed Catholic
Moralistic therapeutic deism
Off the derech (Orthodox Jewish expression)
Stay LDS
Sunday Christian
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Stack, Peggy Fletcher (23 September 2011). "Active, inactive – do Mormon labels work or wound?". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
2.Jump up ^ Rogers, Peggy (n.d.), "New Order Mormon Essays", New Order Mormon, NewOrderMormon.org (Publisher is anonymous), retrieved 2013-09-20 |chapter= ignored (help)
3.Jump up ^ Hales, Robert D. (November 1994), "The Importance of Receiving a Personal Testimony", Ensign, retrieved 2011-09-27
4.Jump up ^ Mormonism 201: Chapter 15
5.Jump up ^ New Order Mormons
6.Jump up ^ Humanistic Mormonism=Traditional Mormonism; Redemptive Mormonism=Neo-Orthodox Mormonism:
7.Jump up ^ Mormon Theologian Sterling M. McMurrin and humanistic Mormonism:
8.Jump up ^ General Authorities and Administrative Officers of the Society for Humanistic Mormonism
9.Jump up ^ The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Society for Humanistic Mormonism (2013), A Proclamation on Comedy and Humor
External links[edit]
New Order Mormons - A website for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who no longer believe some (or many) of the doctrines of the LDS church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural and social reasons. New Order Mormon Discussion Forum: "A forum for those who have chosen to remain connected with the LDS church for personal reasons and in spite of church history or present practices."
Society for Humanistic Mormonism - The official webpage for the Society for Humanistic Mormonism.
The Post-Mormon Community - An organization for those who have left the Church and no longer believe in it.





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
"Mormon-nomers"
















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Culture





















































































































































  


Categories: Latter Day Saint terms
Latter Day Saint movement






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
Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 March 2015, at 19:45.
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/Cultural_Mormon









Cultural Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Cultural Mormon is a term used for Mormons who no longer believe some, or many, of the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), but who self-identify as Mormon.[1] Usually this is a result of having been raised in the LDS faith, or as having converted and spent a large portion of one's life as an active member of the LDS Church. Cultural Mormons may or may not be actively involved with the church, and in some cases may not even be officially members of the church.
Typically, cultural Mormons still have an appreciation for the lessons and the love they have received in the course of long church membership."[2] The Cultural Mormons do not necessarily hold anti-Mormon sentiments and often support the goals of the church. Many retain a sense of Mormon identity for life.


Contents  [hide]
1 Results of doctrinal differences
2 Internet communities 2.1 New Order Mormons
2.2 Humanistic Mormonism
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Results of doctrinal differences[edit]
The church does not regard disbelief in its doctrines as grounds for disciplinary action. Church leaders teach that doubts can be resolved by "instruction, study, and prayer, which result in increased testimony, which drives out further doubts."[3] However, disbelief in certain core doctrines (such as the role of Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer, or the leaders of the church as prophets, seers, and revelators)[4] can prevent a Cultural Mormon from participating in certain activities, such as priesthood ordinances and temple worship. As a result, some choose to keep their doubts a secret in order to continue to participate in such activities, or to avoid conflict with family and friends. In addition, disciplinary action may be taken when a member publicly opposes church doctrines (e.g. Grant Palmer, Kate Kelly, or John Dehlin).
Internet communities[edit]
Because of the fear that divulging their unorthodox beliefs will result in stigmatization and increased attention, some practicing Cultural Mormons prefer anonymity. Many therefore participate in Internet communities, where they can discuss their issues anonymously.
New Order Mormons[edit]
One such group refers to itself as the New Order Mormons,[5] a name patterned on the term New Order Amish (Amish who maintain cultural ties to their religion while not accepting some of its core tenets). This is a group of Mormons and former Mormons who no longer believe at least some of the tenets of the LDS faith, but because of family or cultural ties do not choose to completely separate themselves from the faith.
Humanistic Mormonism[edit]
Humanistic Mormonism[6][7] is a movement of Free Thinkers, Cultural Mormons, Disfellowshipped or Independents people related to LDS Church and other Latter Day Saint groups that emphasize Mormon culture and history, but do not demand belief in a supernatural god, or the historicity of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It is based on Humanism and can be summarized in some points.[citation needed]
A Mormon is someone who identifies with the history, culture and future of the LDS way of life.
People possess the power and responsibility to shape their own lives independent of supernatural authority.
Ethics and morality should serve human needs and choices should be based upon consideration of the consequences of actions rather than pre-ordained rules or commandments.
The Bible, Book of Mormon or other religious texts are purely human and natural phenomena. Biblical and other traditional texts are the products of human activity and are best understood by scientific analysis.
The Society for Humanistic Mormonism characterizes itself as a "new worldwide religion of Humanistic Mormonism" with its own "General Authorities and Administrative Officers",[8] and with its own unique doctrines, such as a "Covenant of Comedy and Humor".[9]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Latter-day Saints portal
Antinomianism
Bloggernacle
Blogs about Mormons and Mormonism
Cafeteria Christianity
Cultural Catholic
Cultural Christian
Cultural Judaism
Cultural Muslim
Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Humanistic Judaism
Lapsed Catholic
Moralistic therapeutic deism
Off the derech (Orthodox Jewish expression)
Stay LDS
Sunday Christian
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Stack, Peggy Fletcher (23 September 2011). "Active, inactive – do Mormon labels work or wound?". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
2.Jump up ^ Rogers, Peggy (n.d.), "New Order Mormon Essays", New Order Mormon, NewOrderMormon.org (Publisher is anonymous), retrieved 2013-09-20 |chapter= ignored (help)
3.Jump up ^ Hales, Robert D. (November 1994), "The Importance of Receiving a Personal Testimony", Ensign, retrieved 2011-09-27
4.Jump up ^ Mormonism 201: Chapter 15
5.Jump up ^ New Order Mormons
6.Jump up ^ Humanistic Mormonism=Traditional Mormonism; Redemptive Mormonism=Neo-Orthodox Mormonism:
7.Jump up ^ Mormon Theologian Sterling M. McMurrin and humanistic Mormonism:
8.Jump up ^ General Authorities and Administrative Officers of the Society for Humanistic Mormonism
9.Jump up ^ The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Society for Humanistic Mormonism (2013), A Proclamation on Comedy and Humor
External links[edit]
New Order Mormons - A website for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who no longer believe some (or many) of the doctrines of the LDS church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural and social reasons. New Order Mormon Discussion Forum: "A forum for those who have chosen to remain connected with the LDS church for personal reasons and in spite of church history or present practices."
Society for Humanistic Mormonism - The official webpage for the Society for Humanistic Mormonism.
The Post-Mormon Community - An organization for those who have left the Church and no longer believe in it.





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
"Mormon-nomers"
















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Culture





















































































































































  


Categories: Latter Day Saint terms
Latter Day Saint movement






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
Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 March 2015, at 19:45.
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/Cultural_Mormon










Cafeteria Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Cafeteria Christianity" is a derogatory term used by some Christians, and others, to accuse other Christian individuals or denominations of selecting which Christian doctrines they will follow, and which they will not.[1][2]


Contents  [hide]
1 First use in print
2 Interpretation
3 Usage
4 Cafeteria Catholicism
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

First use in print[edit]
The first use in print appears to be in the magazine The Month in 1992; however, a related term, cafeteria Catholicism, had already appeared in E. Michael Jones's Fidelity Magazine in 1986.
Another early use was Richard Holloway in an interview in the Third Way in September 2001.

You get cafeteria Christianity, a kind of shopping for ideas you approve of. They turned out to be right for the wrong reasons, because I think that once you admit that there are in scripture large sections that by our standards are not just inappropriate but scarcely moral - such as the justification of slavery...
— Third Way, September 2001
Interpretation[edit]
Cafeteria-style means picking and choosing, as if "sliding our food tray along a cafeteria's counter",[3] referring to some Christians' making a personal selection of Christian teaching, "picking and choosing the stuff you want and discarding the rest".[4] The term implies that an individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than an acceptance of Christian doctrine. The selectivity implied may relate to the acceptance of Christian doctrines (such as the resurrection or the virgin birth of Jesus), or attitudes to moral and ethical issues (for example abortion, homosexuality, or idolatry) and is sometimes associated with discussions concerning the applicability of Old Testament laws to Christians and interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. "The idea is the moderates pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to follow."[5]
Cafeteria Christianity is somewhat related to latitudinarianism, the position that differences of opinion on church organization and doctrine are acceptable within a church.
As the Christian version of "cherry-picking theology", it is seen as a result of postmodern reading of texts, where the reader goes beyond analysis of what requires interpretation, adopting an approach where "anything goes".[6]
In The Marketplace of Christianity, economists Robert Ekelund, Robert Hébert and Robert Tollison equate Cafeteria Christianity with self-generated Christianity, i.e. the religion of many Christians which "matches their demand profile" and "may be Christian or based in other areas of thought." They conclude that "Christian religious individualists have existed in all times."[7]
Usage[edit]
Since the cafeteria Christian may be someone who wants "to reject the parts of scripture they find objectionable and embrace only the parts they like",[8] the term can be used ad hominem, either to disqualify a person's omission of a Christian precept, or to invalidate their advocacy of a different precept entirely.
Equated with "Christianity Lite", it is sometimes used to deride the mass-appeal subculture of megachurches.[9]
Cafeteria Catholicism[edit]
Main article: Cafeteria Catholicism
The related term "cafeteria Catholicism" is a pejorative term applied to Catholics who dissent from Roman Catholic moral teaching on issues such as abortion, birth control, premarital sex, masturbation or homosexuality.
The term is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment or just war; this is because these areas of Catholic teaching are much less clearly dogmatically defined by the Magisterium, and therefore open to debate.[10] The term has been in use since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, an official document that propounded the Church's opposition to the use of artificial birth control and advocates natural family planning.
See also[edit]
Adiaphora
Americanism (heresy)
Antinomianism
Biblical law in Christianity
Cherry picking (fallacy)
Christianity and homosexuality
Cultural Mormon
Dual-covenant theology
Hermeneutics
Humanistic Judaism

Portal icon Christianity portal
Lapsed Catholic
Legalism (theology)
Moralistic therapeutic deism
New Covenant
New Wine into Old Wineskins
Red-Letter Christian
Sabbath in Christianity
Sunday Christian
Supersessionism

References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Odermann, Valerian (February 2002). "Pass it on: Encouraging the heart". The American Monastic Newsletter (The American Benedictine Academy) 32 (1). "Yet a danger does still remain. It is the danger of "cafeteria Christianity," which lets people mix and match traditions any way they want, without discipline and without accountability. Unless we transcend cafeteria Christianity, our practices will be more sarabaite or gyrovague than Benedictine".
2.Jump up ^ "Archbishop calls on Costa Ricans to abandon "cafeteria Christianity" and defend life". San Jose: Catholic News Agency. 2005-03-29. "Archbishop Hugo Barrantes Urena of San Jose, Costa Rica, told Costa Ricans in his Easter message to embrace the faith without conditions or short-cuts and to defend the life of the unborn against efforts to legalize abortion. The archbishop warned that “based on a relativistic understanding of the Christian faith and a conditional adherence to the Church, some Catholics seek to construct a Christianity and, consequently, a Church to their own liking, unilateral and outside the identity and mission that Jesus Christ has fundamentally given us.”"
3.Jump up ^ Hamilton, Nancy (May 21, 2010). Marshmallows in the Sky: Twenty-Three Articles on Christianity Based on Life Experiences. WestBow Press. p. 30.
4.Jump up ^ Johnson, Troy. Family Outing: What Happened When I Found Out My Mother Was Gay. Skyhorse Publishing Inc.
5.Jump up ^ Jacobs, A. J. (2007). The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible. Simon & Schuster. p. 327. ISBN 0743291476.
6.Jump up ^ Kwak, Arie-Jan (2009). Holy Writ: Interpretation in Law and Religion. Ashgate Publishing. p. 76. ISBN 9780754678960.
7.Jump up ^ Ekelund, Robert; Hébert, Robert; Tollison, Robert (2006). The Marketplace of Christianity. MIT Press. p. 258. ISBN 9780262050821.
8.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh (2007). What's So Great About Christianity. Regnery Publishing. p. xii. ISBN 1596985178. "This is "cafeteria Christianity", and it is worse than literalism. ... The cafeteria Christian simply projects his or her prejudices onto the text."
9.Jump up ^ Balmer, Randall (2006). Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey Into the Evangelical Subculture in America. Oxford University Press. p. 324. ISBN 9780195300468.
10.Jump up ^ Winters, Michael Sean (2009-01-30). "The Crowded Catholic Cafeteria". Slate.com.
External links[edit]
 Look up cafeteria Christianity in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Cafeteria Christianity: Pros and Cons
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism - the New American Religion
COG article on Cafeteria Christianity
Pastor Russ Reese on Cafeteria Christianity
Cafeteria Catholics
Madison Catholic Herald: Cafeteria Christians
St. Luke Orthodox Church: Sodomy and Cafeteria Christians
Pope Benedict decries cafeteria Catholicism
U.S. Catholic Magazine: Cafeteria Catholics
Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: For and Against the Law
Cafeteria Catholics don't need to get in line by Jack Rathschmidt, O.F.M. Cap.
PBS NewsHour: Papal Visit Prompts Reflection on U.S. Catholic Identity
Professor McGrath's blog on Cafeteria Christianity
  


Categories: Christian philosophy
Christianity-related controversies
Pejorative terms for people
Ecclesiology
Christian terminology
Ethnic and religious slurs


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

Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 April 2015, at 16:44.
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/Cafeteria_Christianity










Cafeteria Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Cafeteria Christianity" is a derogatory term used by some Christians, and others, to accuse other Christian individuals or denominations of selecting which Christian doctrines they will follow, and which they will not.[1][2]


Contents  [hide]
1 First use in print
2 Interpretation
3 Usage
4 Cafeteria Catholicism
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

First use in print[edit]
The first use in print appears to be in the magazine The Month in 1992; however, a related term, cafeteria Catholicism, had already appeared in E. Michael Jones's Fidelity Magazine in 1986.
Another early use was Richard Holloway in an interview in the Third Way in September 2001.

You get cafeteria Christianity, a kind of shopping for ideas you approve of. They turned out to be right for the wrong reasons, because I think that once you admit that there are in scripture large sections that by our standards are not just inappropriate but scarcely moral - such as the justification of slavery...
— Third Way, September 2001
Interpretation[edit]
Cafeteria-style means picking and choosing, as if "sliding our food tray along a cafeteria's counter",[3] referring to some Christians' making a personal selection of Christian teaching, "picking and choosing the stuff you want and discarding the rest".[4] The term implies that an individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than an acceptance of Christian doctrine. The selectivity implied may relate to the acceptance of Christian doctrines (such as the resurrection or the virgin birth of Jesus), or attitudes to moral and ethical issues (for example abortion, homosexuality, or idolatry) and is sometimes associated with discussions concerning the applicability of Old Testament laws to Christians and interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. "The idea is the moderates pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to follow."[5]
Cafeteria Christianity is somewhat related to latitudinarianism, the position that differences of opinion on church organization and doctrine are acceptable within a church.
As the Christian version of "cherry-picking theology", it is seen as a result of postmodern reading of texts, where the reader goes beyond analysis of what requires interpretation, adopting an approach where "anything goes".[6]
In The Marketplace of Christianity, economists Robert Ekelund, Robert Hébert and Robert Tollison equate Cafeteria Christianity with self-generated Christianity, i.e. the religion of many Christians which "matches their demand profile" and "may be Christian or based in other areas of thought." They conclude that "Christian religious individualists have existed in all times."[7]
Usage[edit]
Since the cafeteria Christian may be someone who wants "to reject the parts of scripture they find objectionable and embrace only the parts they like",[8] the term can be used ad hominem, either to disqualify a person's omission of a Christian precept, or to invalidate their advocacy of a different precept entirely.
Equated with "Christianity Lite", it is sometimes used to deride the mass-appeal subculture of megachurches.[9]
Cafeteria Catholicism[edit]
Main article: Cafeteria Catholicism
The related term "cafeteria Catholicism" is a pejorative term applied to Catholics who dissent from Roman Catholic moral teaching on issues such as abortion, birth control, premarital sex, masturbation or homosexuality.
The term is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment or just war; this is because these areas of Catholic teaching are much less clearly dogmatically defined by the Magisterium, and therefore open to debate.[10] The term has been in use since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, an official document that propounded the Church's opposition to the use of artificial birth control and advocates natural family planning.
See also[edit]
Adiaphora
Americanism (heresy)
Antinomianism
Biblical law in Christianity
Cherry picking (fallacy)
Christianity and homosexuality
Cultural Mormon
Dual-covenant theology
Hermeneutics
Humanistic Judaism

Portal icon Christianity portal
Lapsed Catholic
Legalism (theology)
Moralistic therapeutic deism
New Covenant
New Wine into Old Wineskins
Red-Letter Christian
Sabbath in Christianity
Sunday Christian
Supersessionism

References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Odermann, Valerian (February 2002). "Pass it on: Encouraging the heart". The American Monastic Newsletter (The American Benedictine Academy) 32 (1). "Yet a danger does still remain. It is the danger of "cafeteria Christianity," which lets people mix and match traditions any way they want, without discipline and without accountability. Unless we transcend cafeteria Christianity, our practices will be more sarabaite or gyrovague than Benedictine".
2.Jump up ^ "Archbishop calls on Costa Ricans to abandon "cafeteria Christianity" and defend life". San Jose: Catholic News Agency. 2005-03-29. "Archbishop Hugo Barrantes Urena of San Jose, Costa Rica, told Costa Ricans in his Easter message to embrace the faith without conditions or short-cuts and to defend the life of the unborn against efforts to legalize abortion. The archbishop warned that “based on a relativistic understanding of the Christian faith and a conditional adherence to the Church, some Catholics seek to construct a Christianity and, consequently, a Church to their own liking, unilateral and outside the identity and mission that Jesus Christ has fundamentally given us.”"
3.Jump up ^ Hamilton, Nancy (May 21, 2010). Marshmallows in the Sky: Twenty-Three Articles on Christianity Based on Life Experiences. WestBow Press. p. 30.
4.Jump up ^ Johnson, Troy. Family Outing: What Happened When I Found Out My Mother Was Gay. Skyhorse Publishing Inc.
5.Jump up ^ Jacobs, A. J. (2007). The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible. Simon & Schuster. p. 327. ISBN 0743291476.
6.Jump up ^ Kwak, Arie-Jan (2009). Holy Writ: Interpretation in Law and Religion. Ashgate Publishing. p. 76. ISBN 9780754678960.
7.Jump up ^ Ekelund, Robert; Hébert, Robert; Tollison, Robert (2006). The Marketplace of Christianity. MIT Press. p. 258. ISBN 9780262050821.
8.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh (2007). What's So Great About Christianity. Regnery Publishing. p. xii. ISBN 1596985178. "This is "cafeteria Christianity", and it is worse than literalism. ... The cafeteria Christian simply projects his or her prejudices onto the text."
9.Jump up ^ Balmer, Randall (2006). Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey Into the Evangelical Subculture in America. Oxford University Press. p. 324. ISBN 9780195300468.
10.Jump up ^ Winters, Michael Sean (2009-01-30). "The Crowded Catholic Cafeteria". Slate.com.
External links[edit]
 Look up cafeteria Christianity in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Cafeteria Christianity: Pros and Cons
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism - the New American Religion
COG article on Cafeteria Christianity
Pastor Russ Reese on Cafeteria Christianity
Cafeteria Catholics
Madison Catholic Herald: Cafeteria Christians
St. Luke Orthodox Church: Sodomy and Cafeteria Christians
Pope Benedict decries cafeteria Catholicism
U.S. Catholic Magazine: Cafeteria Catholics
Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: For and Against the Law
Cafeteria Catholics don't need to get in line by Jack Rathschmidt, O.F.M. Cap.
PBS NewsHour: Papal Visit Prompts Reflection on U.S. Catholic Identity
Professor McGrath's blog on Cafeteria Christianity
  


Categories: Christian philosophy
Christianity-related controversies
Pejorative terms for people
Ecclesiology
Christian terminology
Ethnic and religious slurs


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

Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 April 2015, at 16:44.
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/Cafeteria_Christianity










Cafeteria Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The term cafeteria Catholicism is applied to those who assert their Catholic identity yet dissent from Catholic doctrinal or moral teaching or who are viewed as dissenting by those using the term. Examples include Catholics who are accused of dissenting from Church teachings on human sexuality (the so-called "pelvic issues")—abortion, birth control, divorce, premarital sex, masturbation, pornography, prostitution, or the moral status of homosexual acts.


Contents  [hide]
1 Use in print
2 Use of the term
3 Surveys on dissenting Catholic laity
4 Self-described cafeteria Catholics
5 See also
6 References

Use in print[edit]
An early use in print of "cafeteria Catholicism" appears in Fidelity, 1986.

"Cafeteria Catholicism" allows us to pick those "truths" by which we will measure our lives as Catholics. ... "Cafeteria Catholicism" is what happens when the stance of Protagoras, regarding man as the measure of all things, gets religion — but not too much.
— Fidelity, 1986 published by the Wanderer Forum Foundation.
A different distinction, in the term "communal Catholicism" had already been used in 1976.[1]
Use of the term[edit]
The term is most often used by conservative Catholics critical of progressive Catholics. It is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment, or just war. Conservative Catholics would argue this is because these areas of Catholic teaching are not definitively dogmatically defined by the Magisterium, and therefore not unchanging infallible (from a Catholic standpoint) dogmata.[2] The term has been in use since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, an official document that propounded the Church's opposition to the use of artificial birth control and advocates natural family planning.
It is often a synonymous phrase for "Catholic-in-name-only" (or CINO), "dissident Catholic", "heretical Catholic", "cultural Christian", or "liberal Catholic".
The term has no status in official Catholic teachings. However, the practice of selective adherence to the teachings of the Church has been repeatedly condemned by the Church as heresy, in the Magisterial teachings and through the teaching of the Popes. In a homily delivered on April 18, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI clarified the relation of dissent to faith:[3]

Being an adult means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature.
In a similar vein, Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:[4]

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."
Dissenting Catholics do not see themselves as heretics.[citation needed]
Pope Francis said that rigid traditionalists and cafeteria Catholics “aren’t really Catholics”.[5]
Surveys on dissenting Catholic laity[edit]
In 2014, the U.S. Spanish-language network Univision commissioned a World Values Survey of 12,038 self-identified Catholics in 12 countries with substantial Catholic populations across the world, representing 61% of the world’s Catholic population and covering nine languages spread across five continents.[6] It found that majorities of Catholics globally and in most regions disagree with Church teachings on divorce, abortion, and contraception, with greater intra- and inter-national division on gay marriage and the ordination of women and divorced men.[6] Favourable views about the Pope (Francis) did not influence Catholics who disagree with at least some of the church's teachings.[7] Overall, a higher proportion of Third World Roman Catholics (notably Africa and the Philippines) accept the official doctrines on these subjects, while those in Western countries tend to disagree with many of them.[6] In the United States[6] and Spain,[8] the majority of Catholics support gay marriage, followed by France at 43% support.[9]
The founder of World Values Survey, Ronald Inglehart said:

This is a balancing act. They have to hold together two increasingly divergent constituencies. The church has lost its ability to dictate what people do. Right now, the less-developed world is staying true to the old world values, but it’s gradually eroding even there. [Pope Francis] doesn’t want to lose the legitimacy of the more educated people. [10]
Francis has requested parishes provide answers to an official questionnaire regarding the current opinions among the laity. He has also continued to assert present Catholic doctrine in less dramatic tone than his more direct predecessors who maintained that the Catholic Church is not a democracy of popular opinion.[11][12]
Francis launched his own survey of Catholic opinion in November 2013. Linda Woodhead of Lancaster University writes, "it’s not a survey in any sense that a social scientist would recognize." Woodhead feels many ordinary Catholics will have difficulty understanding theological jargon there. Still Woodhead suspects the survey may be influential.

But surveys are dangerous things. They raise expectations. And they play to people's growing sense that they have voice and choice—even in a traditional Church. If it turns out that those voices are ignored or, worse, corralled more firmly into the existing sheepfold of moral teaching, the tension may reach a breaking point. Perhaps Francis is clever enough to have anticipated that, and perhaps he has subtle plans to turn such a crisis to good ends. Perhaps not.
—Linda Woodhead [13]
Self-described cafeteria Catholics[edit]
James Carville[14]
Mary Karr[15]
See also[edit]
Mater si, magistra no
Cafeteria Christianity
Biblical law in Christianity
Lapsed Catholic
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Chicago Catholics and the Struggles Within Their Church page 21, Andrew M. Greeley - 2010 "4 Cafeteria Catholicism - In 1976, I published a book called The Communal Catholic (Greeley, 1976) in which I suggested that there two kinds of Catholics had emerged in the years after the council—'Institutional Catholics,' who obeyed or tried to obey all the rules and laws promulgated by the Church, and 'Communal Catholics,' who continued to attach themselves in some fashion to the church, but now to the community of its members rather than to the rules laid down by those in Church authority."
2.Jump up ^ Winters, Michael Sean (2009-01-30). "The Crowded Catholic Cafeteria". Slate.com.
3.Jump up ^ Taggiasco, Flavia (2005-04-20). "Ratzinger a close confidant of John Paul II". CNN.com.
4.Jump up ^ "Cafeteria Catholics".
5.Jump up ^ [ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2014/06/pope-francis-rigid-traditionalists-and-cafeteria-catholics-arent-really-catholics]
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Voice of the People". Univision. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
7.Jump up ^ Catholics support Pope Francis, but many split on teachings: poll
8.Jump up ^ "Spain". Univision. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "Spain". Univision. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Pope Francis faces church divided over doctrine, global poll of Catholics finds
11.Jump up ^ Poll: Catholic Beliefs at Odds With Vatican Doctrine
12.Jump up ^ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/03/the-catholic-church-is-not-a-democracy/
13.Jump up ^ New Poll: ‘Faithful Catholics’ an Endangered Species
14.Jump up ^ Molyneux, Michael (2006). "Faith, hope, and politics: Practicing religion in the public realm". Boston College Magazine. Retrieved 2009-06-25.
15.Jump up ^ Edelstein, Wendy (2006-02-15). "An Improbable Catholic". UC Berkeley News. Retrieved 2010-2-08.
  


Categories: Neologisms
History of Roman Catholicism





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
日本語
Edit links
This page was last modified on 17 January 2015, at 21:24.
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/Cafeteria_Catholicism









Cafeteria Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The term cafeteria Catholicism is applied to those who assert their Catholic identity yet dissent from Catholic doctrinal or moral teaching or who are viewed as dissenting by those using the term. Examples include Catholics who are accused of dissenting from Church teachings on human sexuality (the so-called "pelvic issues")—abortion, birth control, divorce, premarital sex, masturbation, pornography, prostitution, or the moral status of homosexual acts.


Contents  [hide]
1 Use in print
2 Use of the term
3 Surveys on dissenting Catholic laity
4 Self-described cafeteria Catholics
5 See also
6 References

Use in print[edit]
An early use in print of "cafeteria Catholicism" appears in Fidelity, 1986.

"Cafeteria Catholicism" allows us to pick those "truths" by which we will measure our lives as Catholics. ... "Cafeteria Catholicism" is what happens when the stance of Protagoras, regarding man as the measure of all things, gets religion — but not too much.
— Fidelity, 1986 published by the Wanderer Forum Foundation.
A different distinction, in the term "communal Catholicism" had already been used in 1976.[1]
Use of the term[edit]
The term is most often used by conservative Catholics critical of progressive Catholics. It is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment, or just war. Conservative Catholics would argue this is because these areas of Catholic teaching are not definitively dogmatically defined by the Magisterium, and therefore not unchanging infallible (from a Catholic standpoint) dogmata.[2] The term has been in use since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, an official document that propounded the Church's opposition to the use of artificial birth control and advocates natural family planning.
It is often a synonymous phrase for "Catholic-in-name-only" (or CINO), "dissident Catholic", "heretical Catholic", "cultural Christian", or "liberal Catholic".
The term has no status in official Catholic teachings. However, the practice of selective adherence to the teachings of the Church has been repeatedly condemned by the Church as heresy, in the Magisterial teachings and through the teaching of the Popes. In a homily delivered on April 18, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI clarified the relation of dissent to faith:[3]

Being an adult means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature.
In a similar vein, Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:[4]

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."
Dissenting Catholics do not see themselves as heretics.[citation needed]
Pope Francis said that rigid traditionalists and cafeteria Catholics “aren’t really Catholics”.[5]
Surveys on dissenting Catholic laity[edit]
In 2014, the U.S. Spanish-language network Univision commissioned a World Values Survey of 12,038 self-identified Catholics in 12 countries with substantial Catholic populations across the world, representing 61% of the world’s Catholic population and covering nine languages spread across five continents.[6] It found that majorities of Catholics globally and in most regions disagree with Church teachings on divorce, abortion, and contraception, with greater intra- and inter-national division on gay marriage and the ordination of women and divorced men.[6] Favourable views about the Pope (Francis) did not influence Catholics who disagree with at least some of the church's teachings.[7] Overall, a higher proportion of Third World Roman Catholics (notably Africa and the Philippines) accept the official doctrines on these subjects, while those in Western countries tend to disagree with many of them.[6] In the United States[6] and Spain,[8] the majority of Catholics support gay marriage, followed by France at 43% support.[9]
The founder of World Values Survey, Ronald Inglehart said:

This is a balancing act. They have to hold together two increasingly divergent constituencies. The church has lost its ability to dictate what people do. Right now, the less-developed world is staying true to the old world values, but it’s gradually eroding even there. [Pope Francis] doesn’t want to lose the legitimacy of the more educated people. [10]
Francis has requested parishes provide answers to an official questionnaire regarding the current opinions among the laity. He has also continued to assert present Catholic doctrine in less dramatic tone than his more direct predecessors who maintained that the Catholic Church is not a democracy of popular opinion.[11][12]
Francis launched his own survey of Catholic opinion in November 2013. Linda Woodhead of Lancaster University writes, "it’s not a survey in any sense that a social scientist would recognize." Woodhead feels many ordinary Catholics will have difficulty understanding theological jargon there. Still Woodhead suspects the survey may be influential.

But surveys are dangerous things. They raise expectations. And they play to people's growing sense that they have voice and choice—even in a traditional Church. If it turns out that those voices are ignored or, worse, corralled more firmly into the existing sheepfold of moral teaching, the tension may reach a breaking point. Perhaps Francis is clever enough to have anticipated that, and perhaps he has subtle plans to turn such a crisis to good ends. Perhaps not.
—Linda Woodhead [13]
Self-described cafeteria Catholics[edit]
James Carville[14]
Mary Karr[15]
See also[edit]
Mater si, magistra no
Cafeteria Christianity
Biblical law in Christianity
Lapsed Catholic
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Chicago Catholics and the Struggles Within Their Church page 21, Andrew M. Greeley - 2010 "4 Cafeteria Catholicism - In 1976, I published a book called The Communal Catholic (Greeley, 1976) in which I suggested that there two kinds of Catholics had emerged in the years after the council—'Institutional Catholics,' who obeyed or tried to obey all the rules and laws promulgated by the Church, and 'Communal Catholics,' who continued to attach themselves in some fashion to the church, but now to the community of its members rather than to the rules laid down by those in Church authority."
2.Jump up ^ Winters, Michael Sean (2009-01-30). "The Crowded Catholic Cafeteria". Slate.com.
3.Jump up ^ Taggiasco, Flavia (2005-04-20). "Ratzinger a close confidant of John Paul II". CNN.com.
4.Jump up ^ "Cafeteria Catholics".
5.Jump up ^ [ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2014/06/pope-francis-rigid-traditionalists-and-cafeteria-catholics-arent-really-catholics]
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Voice of the People". Univision. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
7.Jump up ^ Catholics support Pope Francis, but many split on teachings: poll
8.Jump up ^ "Spain". Univision. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "Spain". Univision. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Pope Francis faces church divided over doctrine, global poll of Catholics finds
11.Jump up ^ Poll: Catholic Beliefs at Odds With Vatican Doctrine
12.Jump up ^ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/03/the-catholic-church-is-not-a-democracy/
13.Jump up ^ New Poll: ‘Faithful Catholics’ an Endangered Species
14.Jump up ^ Molyneux, Michael (2006). "Faith, hope, and politics: Practicing religion in the public realm". Boston College Magazine. Retrieved 2009-06-25.
15.Jump up ^ Edelstein, Wendy (2006-02-15). "An Improbable Catholic". UC Berkeley News. Retrieved 2010-2-08.
  


Categories: Neologisms
History of Roman Catholicism





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
日本語
Edit links
This page was last modified on 17 January 2015, at 21:24.
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/Cafeteria_Catholicism









Cultural Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Cultural Jew)
Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)
Part of a series on
Jews and Judaism
Star of David
Etymology ·
 Who is a Jew?
 Jewish peoplehood ·
 Jewish identity
 

Religion[show]






















Texts[show]
























Communities[show]






















Population[show]



































































































Denominations[hide]

Alternative ·
 Reform ·
 Conservative ·
 Humanistic ·
 Haymanot ·
 Karaite ·
 Liberal ·
 Orthodox ·
 Progressive ·
 Reconstructionist ·
 Renewal ·
 Traditional
 

Culture[show]













Languages[show]













History[show]









































Politics[show]












Category Category
Portal icon Judaism portal
WikiProject WikiProject

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Cultural Judaism encourages individual thought and understanding in Judaism. Its relation to Judaism is through the history, civilization, ethical values and shared experiences of the Jewish people.
Cultural Jews connect to their heritage through the languages, literature, art, dance, music, food, and celebrations of the Jewish people. For example, Jews who identify only with their particular culture may call themselves Cultural Jews.
There is no singular Jewish culture or ethnicity to claim as a Jewish Culture. This is because there are Jews of many different cultures; distinctly Jewish in their religious observances, their cultural practices were influenced by the country in which the practices arose. For example, there are differences in the culture of Jews in Ashkenazi, or Eastern European communities, from those in Sephardi, or Spanish-influenced Jewish communities, but both Ashkenazi and Sephardi are Jewish cultures. In studying Jewish culture, the Jewish languages often give a clue as to the source of the culture influencing the different Jewish customs arising in the Diaspora.
See also[edit]
Center for Cultural Judaism
Habonim Dror
Orthodox Judaism
Secular Jewish culture
Notes[edit]

External links[edit]
Cultural Judaism
[1]


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Culture


Outline


Sciences
Anthropology ·
 Cultural ecology ·
 Cultural neuroscience ·
 Cultural studies ·
 Culturology ·
 Culture theory
 

Subfields
Cultural anthropology ·
 Cultural economics ·
 Cultural geography ·
 Cultural history ·
 Cultural psychology ·
 Intercultural relations ·
 Philosophy of culture ·
 Semiotics of culture ·
 Sociology of culture ·
 Theology of culture
 Sound culture ·
 Visual culture
 

Types
Bullying culture ·
 Dominant culture ·
 Folk culture ·
 High culture ·
 Low culture ·
 Official culture ·
 Political culture ·
 Popular culture ·
 Primitive culture ·
 Subculture  (list)
   ·
 Super-culture ·
 Culture by location
 

Aspects
Acculturation ·
 Cultural appropriation ·
 Cultural artifact ·
 Cultural baggage ·
 Cultural behavior ·
 Cultural capital ·
 Cultural communication ·
 Cultural conflict ·
 Cultural cringe ·
 Cultural deprivation ·
 Cultural dissonance ·
 Cultural framework ·
 Cultural heritage ·
 Cultural icon ·
 Cultural identity ·
 Cultural invention ·
 Cultural landscape ·
 Cultural memory ·
 Cultural pluralism ·
 Cultural practice ·
 Cultural property ·
 Cultural region ·
 Cultural reproduction ·
 Cultural system ·
 Cultural universal ·
 Enculturation ·
 High- and low-context cultures ·
 Interculturality ·
 Material culture ·
 Non-material culture ·
 Trans-cultural diffusion ·
 Transculturation
 

Politics
Colonial mentality ·
 Consumer capitalism ·
 Cultural assimilation ·
 Cultural attaché ·
 Cultural backwardness ·
 Cultural Bolshevism ·
 Cultural conservatism ·
 Cultural diplomacy ·
 Cultural exception ·
 Cultural feminism ·
 Cultural genocide ·
 Cultural hegemony ·
 Cultural imperialism ·
 Cultural intelligence ·
 Cultural learning ·
 Cultural liberalism ·
 Cultural nationalism ·
 Cultural pessimism ·
 Cultural policy ·
 Cultural rights ·
 Cultural Zionism ·
 Culture change ·
 Culture minister ·
 Culture war ·
 Interculturalism ·
 Monoculturalism ·
 Multiculturalism
 

Related
Bennett scale ·
 Conformity ·
 Cross-cultural ·
 Cultural bias ·
 Cultural competence ·
 Cultural critic ·
 Cultural diversity ·
 Cultural lag ·
 Cultural mosaic ·
 Cultural movement ·
 Cultural relativism ·
 Cultural revolution ·
 Cultural tourism ·
 Cultural turn ·
 Cultural sensibility ·
 Culture gap ·
 Culture hero ·
 Culture industry ·
 Culture shock ·
 Death and culture ·
 Emotions and culture ·
 Intercultural competence ·
 Media culture ·
 Organizational culture ·
 Transformation of culture
 

Portal ·
 Category ·
 changes
 

  


Categories: Jewish culture
Jewish religious movements
Secular Jewish culture





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
עברית
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 April 2015, at 15:04.
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/Cultural_Judaism









Cultural Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Cultural Jew)
Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)
Part of a series on
Jews and Judaism
Star of David
Etymology ·
 Who is a Jew?
 Jewish peoplehood ·
 Jewish identity
 

Religion[show]






















Texts[show]
























Communities[show]






















Population[show]



































































































Denominations[hide]

Alternative ·
 Reform ·
 Conservative ·
 Humanistic ·
 Haymanot ·
 Karaite ·
 Liberal ·
 Orthodox ·
 Progressive ·
 Reconstructionist ·
 Renewal ·
 Traditional
 

Culture[show]













Languages[show]













History[show]









































Politics[show]












Category Category
Portal icon Judaism portal
WikiProject WikiProject

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Cultural Judaism encourages individual thought and understanding in Judaism. Its relation to Judaism is through the history, civilization, ethical values and shared experiences of the Jewish people.
Cultural Jews connect to their heritage through the languages, literature, art, dance, music, food, and celebrations of the Jewish people. For example, Jews who identify only with their particular culture may call themselves Cultural Jews.
There is no singular Jewish culture or ethnicity to claim as a Jewish Culture. This is because there are Jews of many different cultures; distinctly Jewish in their religious observances, their cultural practices were influenced by the country in which the practices arose. For example, there are differences in the culture of Jews in Ashkenazi, or Eastern European communities, from those in Sephardi, or Spanish-influenced Jewish communities, but both Ashkenazi and Sephardi are Jewish cultures. In studying Jewish culture, the Jewish languages often give a clue as to the source of the culture influencing the different Jewish customs arising in the Diaspora.
See also[edit]
Center for Cultural Judaism
Habonim Dror
Orthodox Judaism
Secular Jewish culture
Notes[edit]

External links[edit]
Cultural Judaism
[1]


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Culture


Outline


Sciences
Anthropology ·
 Cultural ecology ·
 Cultural neuroscience ·
 Cultural studies ·
 Culturology ·
 Culture theory
 

Subfields
Cultural anthropology ·
 Cultural economics ·
 Cultural geography ·
 Cultural history ·
 Cultural psychology ·
 Intercultural relations ·
 Philosophy of culture ·
 Semiotics of culture ·
 Sociology of culture ·
 Theology of culture
 Sound culture ·
 Visual culture
 

Types
Bullying culture ·
 Dominant culture ·
 Folk culture ·
 High culture ·
 Low culture ·
 Official culture ·
 Political culture ·
 Popular culture ·
 Primitive culture ·
 Subculture  (list)
   ·
 Super-culture ·
 Culture by location
 

Aspects
Acculturation ·
 Cultural appropriation ·
 Cultural artifact ·
 Cultural baggage ·
 Cultural behavior ·
 Cultural capital ·
 Cultural communication ·
 Cultural conflict ·
 Cultural cringe ·
 Cultural deprivation ·
 Cultural dissonance ·
 Cultural framework ·
 Cultural heritage ·
 Cultural icon ·
 Cultural identity ·
 Cultural invention ·
 Cultural landscape ·
 Cultural memory ·
 Cultural pluralism ·
 Cultural practice ·
 Cultural property ·
 Cultural region ·
 Cultural reproduction ·
 Cultural system ·
 Cultural universal ·
 Enculturation ·
 High- and low-context cultures ·
 Interculturality ·
 Material culture ·
 Non-material culture ·
 Trans-cultural diffusion ·
 Transculturation
 

Politics
Colonial mentality ·
 Consumer capitalism ·
 Cultural assimilation ·
 Cultural attaché ·
 Cultural backwardness ·
 Cultural Bolshevism ·
 Cultural conservatism ·
 Cultural diplomacy ·
 Cultural exception ·
 Cultural feminism ·
 Cultural genocide ·
 Cultural hegemony ·
 Cultural imperialism ·
 Cultural intelligence ·
 Cultural learning ·
 Cultural liberalism ·
 Cultural nationalism ·
 Cultural pessimism ·
 Cultural policy ·
 Cultural rights ·
 Cultural Zionism ·
 Culture change ·
 Culture minister ·
 Culture war ·
 Interculturalism ·
 Monoculturalism ·
 Multiculturalism
 

Related
Bennett scale ·
 Conformity ·
 Cross-cultural ·
 Cultural bias ·
 Cultural competence ·
 Cultural critic ·
 Cultural diversity ·
 Cultural lag ·
 Cultural mosaic ·
 Cultural movement ·
 Cultural relativism ·
 Cultural revolution ·
 Cultural tourism ·
 Cultural turn ·
 Cultural sensibility ·
 Culture gap ·
 Culture hero ·
 Culture industry ·
 Culture shock ·
 Death and culture ·
 Emotions and culture ·
 Intercultural competence ·
 Media culture ·
 Organizational culture ·
 Transformation of culture
 

Portal ·
 Category ·
 changes
 

  


Categories: Jewish culture
Jewish religious movements
Secular Jewish culture





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
עברית
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 April 2015, at 15:04.
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/Cultural_Judaism









Jewish secularism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Secular Jewish culture)
Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2015)
Part of a series on
Jews and Judaism
Star of David
Etymology ·
 Who is a Jew?
 Jewish peoplehood ·
 Jewish identity
 

Religion[show]






















Texts[show]
























Communities[show]






















Population[show]



































































































Denominations[show]















Culture[show]













Languages[show]













History[show]









































Politics[show]












Category Category
Portal icon Judaism portal
WikiProject WikiProject

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Jewish secularism comprises those Jewish people who are secular and the body of work produced by secular Jews. Among secular Jews, traditional Jewish holidays may be celebrated as historical and nature festivals, while life-cycle events such as births, marriages, and deaths, may be marked in a secular manner.
Throughout modern history, Jewish thinkers have challenged traditional Judaism. From the time of Baruch Spinoza (1632–77) and his “agnostic morality”, came the belief of the human sense of morality through education and family life, not religious morality.
During the nineteenth century, members of the Society for the Culture and Science of the Jews (Verein fur Kultur und Wissenschaft der Juden) viewed the Jewish people as a cultural group rather than a religious one. These secularists, building on foundations of the Enlightenment or Haskalah, were keen to integrate humanistic culture and education with a Jewish culture not linked to rabbinical dictates, or the existence of a personal God.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Ahad Ha'am contributed to the secular movement with his ideas on Jewish national identity, religion and religious practice. He saw Jewish religious cultural tradition as integral for the education of secular Jews.


Contents  [hide]
1 Figures
2 State of Israel
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Figures[edit]
Secular Jewish art and culture flourished between 1870 and the Second World War, with 18,000 titles in Yiddish and thousands more in Hebrew and European languages, along with hundreds of plays and theater productions, movies, and other art forms. Franz Kafka and Marcel Proust rank among the creators of these works.
Many prominent Jews have been secular, including Sigmund Freud, Marc Chagall, Henri Bergson, Heinrich Heine, Albert Einstein, Theodor Herzl, Louis Brandeis, Micha Josef Berdyczewski and Hayim Nahman Bialik.
State of Israel[edit]
Main article: Hiloni
The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 is often seen as secular Jews' greatest achievement, with Hebrew as a spoken language rather than a language of prayer, and the majority of the population living secular Jewish lives. Some 2,000 secular Israeli schools exist, where children study Jewish history and literature and celebrate the holidays without prayer or religion.
See also[edit]
Center for Cultural Judaism
Humanistic Judaism
Society for Humanistic Judaism
References[edit]

External links[edit]
Secular Culture & Ideas
  


Categories: Secular Jewish culture
Disengagement from 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
Deutsch
Français
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 May 2015, at 05:39.
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/Jewish_secularism









Jewish secularism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Secular Jewish culture)
Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2015)
Part of a series on
Jews and Judaism
Star of David
Etymology ·
 Who is a Jew?
 Jewish peoplehood ·
 Jewish identity
 

Religion[show]






















Texts[show]
























Communities[show]






















Population[show]



































































































Denominations[show]















Culture[show]













Languages[show]













History[show]









































Politics[show]












Category Category
Portal icon Judaism portal
WikiProject WikiProject

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Jewish secularism comprises those Jewish people who are secular and the body of work produced by secular Jews. Among secular Jews, traditional Jewish holidays may be celebrated as historical and nature festivals, while life-cycle events such as births, marriages, and deaths, may be marked in a secular manner.
Throughout modern history, Jewish thinkers have challenged traditional Judaism. From the time of Baruch Spinoza (1632–77) and his “agnostic morality”, came the belief of the human sense of morality through education and family life, not religious morality.
During the nineteenth century, members of the Society for the Culture and Science of the Jews (Verein fur Kultur und Wissenschaft der Juden) viewed the Jewish people as a cultural group rather than a religious one. These secularists, building on foundations of the Enlightenment or Haskalah, were keen to integrate humanistic culture and education with a Jewish culture not linked to rabbinical dictates, or the existence of a personal God.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Ahad Ha'am contributed to the secular movement with his ideas on Jewish national identity, religion and religious practice. He saw Jewish religious cultural tradition as integral for the education of secular Jews.


Contents  [hide]
1 Figures
2 State of Israel
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Figures[edit]
Secular Jewish art and culture flourished between 1870 and the Second World War, with 18,000 titles in Yiddish and thousands more in Hebrew and European languages, along with hundreds of plays and theater productions, movies, and other art forms. Franz Kafka and Marcel Proust rank among the creators of these works.
Many prominent Jews have been secular, including Sigmund Freud, Marc Chagall, Henri Bergson, Heinrich Heine, Albert Einstein, Theodor Herzl, Louis Brandeis, Micha Josef Berdyczewski and Hayim Nahman Bialik.
State of Israel[edit]
Main article: Hiloni
The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 is often seen as secular Jews' greatest achievement, with Hebrew as a spoken language rather than a language of prayer, and the majority of the population living secular Jewish lives. Some 2,000 secular Israeli schools exist, where children study Jewish history and literature and celebrate the holidays without prayer or religion.
See also[edit]
Center for Cultural Judaism
Humanistic Judaism
Society for Humanistic Judaism
References[edit]

External links[edit]
Secular Culture & Ideas
  


Categories: Secular Jewish culture
Disengagement from 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
Deutsch
Français
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 May 2015, at 05:39.
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/Jewish_secularism