Talk:Anti-Protestantism

Holiness / Adventist / Charismatic / Evangelical / China Mid‑importance

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Anabaptist work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Christianity in China work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Discrimination Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019.

Above undated message substituted from

For User:Lankiveil, good luck on keeping the catholics from reverting anti-catholicism to being an outrageous irrational psychosis, while anti-protestantism is "kept in its place" as a mere bias.

Votes are in to keep this page, but someone needs to clean it up.

I took a stab at it and removed the NPOV tag, chiefly because there was no explanation for the tag here on the talk page. If someone thinks the article is biased, they should explain here which way they think it is biased and what should be changed, at least in general terms.

• It =is= biased because "someone" refuses to accept that anti-protestantism is just as evil as anti-catholicism, witnessed by the anti-catholicism page saying that's "irrational" and evil, while anti-protestantism is just a "bias" and is in no way equated to the "racism" and "anti-semitism" that anti-catholicism is equated to. This is soooo pro-Catholic POV that you have to be blind not to see it.

There is something of an explanation for that. When I still edited here I really did look for sites that were as paranoid to Protestants as people like

Assembly of God. I removed AoG from some "list of purported cults" many times as they had no real source and it was just meanness I think. Sure I don't agree with Protestantism, but I'm horrified by the treatment they receive in many parts of the world and sometimes receive by Catholics like me. If you can find sources or movements that express irrational or paranoid hatred of Protestants I totally support adding them to the article. Who knows maybe I even helped you do so? I won't do any editing myself as I've given up on Wikipedia as terminally flawed. Still if you want to fix it go for it. In fact I'd prefer it open by saying Anti-Protestantism is "opposition or hatred" as simple "bias" is something I feel about Protestantism.(But not Protestants themselves, any bias I feel is purely theologic and not personal.)--T. Anthony 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I intend to keep an eye on both, but I invite anyone to help try and keep the two balanced if bias slips into either. As neither a Catholic or a Protestant, I think I can keep a relatively neutral view of things. Unfortunately, it's a subject that some people can get very emotional about, and they lose sight of NPOV when that happens. Lankiveil 12:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is currently almost still at the stub stage, as you could add entire sections on different times in history, different facets of the phenomenon, etc. Wesley 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So much of this article discusses anti-evangelicalism, or anti-fundamentalism, that the focus of the article doesn't seem to be "anti-protestantism" in general at all. I'm not sure if the article should be split up into two separate articles on 1)anti-fundamentalism/evangelicalism and 2)anti-mainline protestantism, or if the article simply should have more information on beliefs that are clearly anti-protestant in a general sense. -- Temtem 00:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The section doesn't read very well, and from my US perspective seems to miss the point. In the US, some evangelicals fancy themselves persecuted because of laws or policies that prohibit religious displays or proselytizing on public property. They also feel that official policies, say, of non-discrimiation against homosexuals violates their religious freedom by forcing them to treat people they consider to be notorious sinners equally. Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be quite happy to par down the section on anti-evangelicalism in this article and devote another article to the subject of how evangelicals are perceived by others. My own political views are not conservative (check out the trouble I had trying to include unfavorable but well-documented facts about Sarah Palin into her biopic, which is zealously guarded by Republicans), but it's pretty obvious that most hostility to evangelicalism comes from the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum. In this article, I delineated a difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists because both parties define themselves differently and in opposition to each other. I'd be fine if someone added a separate "anti-fundamentalism" section, but I'd be resistant to lumping both groups together under one heading as "anti-evangelicalism/fundamentalism," unless the separate styles and identities of each group are very clearly stated in the article.--ManicBrit (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to do some cleanup to the page, but there a lot of bias and unsupported statements remain. --Temtem 00:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

In general Jehovah Witnesses, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Seventh-day Adventists, Baptists, Mormons, and a few fringe sects receive the most negative imagery.

Would Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and Mormons even be considered "Protestant?" --Temtem 00:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I can answer your question for 1 group at least, SDA are definately considered protestant, they are a pretty traditional schism group from methodists and as such trace their roots back to Martin Luther. If you consider Seventh Day Baptists to be a protestant group then you have to include SDA. The dietary guidelines, and every other difference which I know of is voluntary rather than law. They are based on biblical inerrancy like all of the traditional protestant beliefs. And are not incompatible with other protestant groups.
• However, I believe with Jehovah's Witnesses there is an incompatible doctrine problem with the concept of Trinity and Jesus's Divinity. But I haven't done any research.

--Darkfred 11:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the Muslim world hostility to Evangelical Christians is widespread and arguably the most violent. In several Islamist societies converting to Christianity is deemed apostasy and can have legal reprecussions. These can vary from censorship to death. Hence in 2004 Eritrea began a crackdown that saw the arrests of several Evangelicals. In other parts of the Islamic world, however, anti-Christian feelings are admittedly more generalized. Christianity in general is viewed unfavorably in Turkey and Pakistan according to a recent Pew Survey.

How is this relevant to Anti-Protestantism, as opposed to anti-Christianity, at all? Is there any evidence that any muslim society would be harsher to a muslim converting to evangelicalism (or other branch of Protestantism) than it would be to a muslim converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy? -- Temtem 00:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

T. Anthony: I tried to alter it some to make it more about Muslims versus Evangelicals. Although you have a good point in that it's often not clear that's what's happening. Interestingly I'm Catholic, but have written much of the version as it stands now. If anything in it offends feel free to say so.

Thanks for the clarification. -- Temtem 19:43, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

should we make mention of the relationship between Anti-Protestantism and Anti-freemasonry?

grazon 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed some references that seem unsupportable and some that have no citations. this article seemed very pov to me, not accepting that protestantism is disliked by many for its effects on socioty and not "hated" in any way. i have changed the first sentence thus. I have also changes the part where evangelicals were "hated". citing from the anti-clericalism article, much opposition to religion is opposition to the hirearchicle socioty that it produces. anti-protestanism is mostly just a variant of this opposition. specifically, hirearchy is easier to build when your religion is easy to convert to like protestanism and especially evangelicalism. also see the revolutionary communist party's stance on "christian fascism" --67.161.93.159 06:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Some Catholics indicated Protestantism was heresy, a crime similar to religious treason, and that without repentance the punishment for Protestantism should be death." This reads pretty POV to me. This seems to make claims regarding Catholics w/o support (the punishment=death part).

I have removed the pre-history section because it conveys and anti-catholic tone and mostly because it doesnt relate to modern protestantism. the idea that anyone who dissented from the catholic church was a protestant no matter what their beleif is fronted by people in the anti-catholic movement. christianity, similarly, cannot be discribed as a protestantism of judaism to be jumped toghether with all other splits from that religion. --67.161.93.159 06:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On May 4, User:24.2.52.199 has made some statements that are basically evangelical POV. While I welcome this user's perspective, some of the claims are quite clearly not suitable. For instance:

• "Evangelicals are one of America's most persecuted religious groups.", pure POV, that is not sourced or documented in any way.
• "This view is shared by many non-evangelicals, like Catholics, Jews, Hindus, and some liberal Protestants(Epicopaneans e.g.)", not only poorly spelled, but possibly a veiled POV attack.
• "there is no other Christian group more devoted to spreading the Gospel", this is what many evangelical Christians may perceive about themselves, but again, it's an unsourced (and unsourcable) piece of POV.

You can see for yourself here what was changed. Based on the above, I am going to wind back some of this user's changes to this article.

Lankiveil 11:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the latest changes, a few pieces of clarification are needed here. The penal laws were first passed in 1609, first Jacobites did not appear until 1689. The xenophobia here refers to the Catholic rebels and was not perceived, it was unfortunately very real. James II did not institute "extreme discrimination" against anyone. What uthe penal laws first passed in 1609, first Jacobites appear in 1689. Thexenophobia here refers to the Catholic rebels. James II did not upset the whigs, covenanters etc was that he repealed the anti-catholic legislation and opened the military and public office to them. As part of this package of religious toleration, James was also prepared to offer toleration to the radical Presbyterians in Scotland, albeit after brutally repressing their armed rebellion - the Killing Time. What is says on the walls of Derry, that James was an, "arbritrary and bigotted monarch", does not stand up to the facts I'm afraid.

Jdorney 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In several countries with a majority of the population identifying themselves as Catholic, there is a hostility to Protestantism as a whole

CITE

In more modern times, Catholic-Protestant relations have grown calmer. Nevertheless, in general the further a Protestant sect is from Catholicism in its doctrine, the more discomfort among many Catholic people arises. Anglicans and Lutherans are only sporadically viewed in a negative light in modern Catholic countries. However, a Zogby poll of American Catholics showed Catholics having a more hostile attitude toward Fundamentalist Christians than to any non-Christian religion

CITE This mixture of xenophobia and religious intolerance led to widespread massacres of Protestant settlers in the Irish Rebellion of 1641.

Never knew that xenophobia means confiscation of land (and so on) C I T E

Superdude99 14:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thing on Pew about Protestant/Catholic relations in Latin America. Exempting Northern Ireland this is the only place I've found with violence between the two groups and it's certainly less than the violence a century ago. Added to that people in the US have less problems voting for a Catholic then they did in the past according to Gallup. I can't get at the Gallup deal because you have to be registered to get their older polls. Cite for yourself though as I told you where to look.--T. Anthony 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)(moved by--T. Anthony 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please don't reply in the middle of my comment(s) ok? Also, I shouldn't be looking for these claims since you made them (or claim them to be real).

"Anglicans and Lutherans are only sporadically viewed in a negative light in modern Catholic countries"

Where do people come up with this? Does this include France, Austria and The republic of Ireland??? Superdude99 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand skepticism, but really? The polls on Americans being more willing to elect a Catholic than in the past are on several sites. As this concerns Catholic hostility to Protestants more the

Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission. However American Catholics having a hostile view of "Fundamentalists" is supported by Zogby 2001. The poll did not ask views of Lutherans and Anglicans, but do you think it'd have been as negative. As for France or Ireland I didn't having polling data on them when I still edited here.--T. Anthony 10:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure about all of it but the "Center for Religious Freedom" and a few other sources indicate Evangelicals face the most violence in Islamic countries. A recent poll showed people less likely to vote for someone described as "An Evangelical Christian" than for any other Christian group except Mormons. I think the poll was from a Los Angeles paper.--T. Anthony 06:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a horrible mess! That's a crying shame because it is an important and interesting topic, and yet the points of merit in the article are sandwiched in between POV bleating and scarcely-hidden doctrinal posturing! Cite more REAL instances of religious discrimination, persecution or ridicule or whatever, preferably from historicial and politically or socially relevant contexts ... but stop blathering over and over that people hate Evangelicals because they "take the Bible literally". That is a blantant doctrinal statement, and it just makes you look like a silly meme-machine. For instance the Zogby poll cited has NOTHING to do with Catholics distrusting Evangelicals because they believe the Bible, but everything to do with political afficilations and agenda, etc. Please, get real, and make this article less embarassing to read!!! Be specific, not knee-jerking!Eschew obfuscation 21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase and concept 'anti-protestantism' seems to me mainly to refer to the inter-wikipedia dispute (or 'balancing act') with the proponents of the 'anti-catholicism' article. In the context of the UK most 'anti-protestantism' was between one protestant sect and another (this is how the USA started...). Historically there was a three cornered fight between Anglicans, Nonconformists and Catholics with the two latter having penal laws imposed on them by the former. Where 'anti-protestantism' comes into this is anyones guess... The most trenchant criticisms and satires on the (protestant) Nonconformists have come from the established (protestant) church (and vice-versa). The animosity between (protestant) church and (protestant) chapel was very bitter indeed till very recent times. IMHO 'Anti-Nonconformist' or 'Anti-Evangelical' or 'Anti-Fundamentalist' or 'Anti-Establishmentarian' have much more conceptual validity than 'Anti-Protestant'. 'Anti-Protestantism' might make more sense if it referred to doctrinal or theological disputes between Protestants and Catholics, but that doesn't seem to be the main sense of this article - which seems to have constructed its putative subject itself and is thus staking a claim to 'originality'.....Colin4C 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main beef with this article is the glaring omissions. The article only mentions the English persecution of Protestants under Bloody Mary in passing, and the persecution of the Huguenots isn't mentioned at all. What about the Protestant rebellions in Spanish-controlled Holland? What about the martyrdom of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer or Jan Huss? How about Foxe's Book of Martyrs? Although it was sensationalistic, to say the least, it also bears mentioning as the most well known book on the persecution of Protestants. Zach82 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that those actions were anti-Protestant. The only trouble is that most of them have come to our attention and have been exaggerated through the writings of anti-Catholics involved in a propaganda war...Difficult to know how to approach this subject from the right angle...

What MIGHT be relevent was SOME samizdat anti-Protestant propaganda produced by under-cover Jesuits under Elizabeth 1: such stuff as 'Leicester's Commonweath' used to rubbish Eliza's chief minister, alleging that the Protestant establishment were really crypto-Machiavellian atheists....

What was the nature of the anti-Protestant propaganda produced in Catholic Spain etc? (I vainly wonder.....).Colin4C 11:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's rather easy to know what happened to Protestants in Catholic countries. The Huguenots were persecuted in France, and I saw the church they built in exile in Berlin when I went there on holiday. We do know Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake for Protestantism after he had recanted his Protestant beliefs. According to legend, when the pyre was lit he thrust his right hand down into the flames so the hand that signed the recantation would burn first. We don't have to resort to Foxe's Book of Martyrs to find examples of anti-Protestantism. Zach82 14:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've just remembered a little thing called the

Counter Reformation...This was the ideological and institutional basis of the anti-Protestant drive. And the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, I guess merits a mention. So basically the whole article needs to be re-written....Colin4C 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I am somewhat puzzled by the this lengthy section of the article. It seems to be looking at the situation in Ireland through the wrong end of the telescope. Much of the anti-Protestantism it details is merely an observation that the Catholics did not enjoy being under the heel of the Protestant Ascendency and reacted against it. It would make more sense to have it in the Anti-Catholicism article. Following a similar logic persecution of the blacks in the Southern States of the USA could be twisted round to 'shocking anti-White sentiments of blacks in Alabama when confronted with a lynch mob' or the persecution of Christians by the Romans to 'terrible anti-pagan feelings of Christians about to be eaten by lions'. Colin4C 13:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be looking at this through the wrong end of a telescope yourself.. perhaps binoculars would be better for you! :) To explain, there is definately anti-Protestantism in Ireland, and there has been such a feeling here since the Reformation basically. --Mal 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, in the sense that the Jews and the Moslems had mixed feelings about Torquemada and the Pope back in Olde Sunny Spaine in Ye Oldeden Dayes. However I do grant you that since the time of Eamon de Valera ("don't listen to him!" - my Irish friends say.....) the Protestants have faced discrimination in the Republic of Ireland. But this is hardly the greatest hardship that Protestants have faced (not as bad as the Netherlands under King Philip for instance). Colin4C 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants in Ireland have faced discrimination too. Also, Protestants in Ireland (and in Britain) have faced discrimination from the likes of William III & Mary, James II and others at various times since the Refomation.. not to mention from specific groups. Whether or not this anti-Protestant sentiment was worse than or not as bad as in other countries is neither here nor there. --Mal 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants facing discrimination from King Billy! Don't tell that to Ian Paisley or the Orange Order...But, yes, confusingly for this article, there was a three corner fight in old Ireland (and England) between Anglicans, Presbyterians and Catholics. Is there a wikipedia article for Anglican Protestants vs Presbyterian Protestants I wonder?....not to mention Scottish Presbyterians versus Cromwellian Nonconformists which resulted in several major battles on English and Scottish soil during the Civil War...Colin4C 03:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a couple of uncited, dreadfully POV comments appearing in the article from an AOL address recently. I haven't complained to the IP Talk page, because, well, it's an AOL address, but I'd ask editors to please keep an eye on this article and revert any grossly anti-Catholic edits that are made. Lankiveil 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps adding links to anti-protestant websites in this article. At first I was just removing them, but now that I think about it a bit more, I have to wonder how useful most of the links there actually are. This is the article about "Anti-Protestantism", not a page where we discuss why Protestantism is wrong. Yet, most of the links are either justifications for, or criticisms of, Protestantism. This doesn't make sense to me - surely any links provided should be on the actual topic of anti-Protestantism, not Protestantism itself.

As such, I'm going to do some fairly serious culling of the links section in the next couple of days, unless someone raises objections. Lankiveil 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I concur with Greatgavini's tagging the new section as non-noteable. It's also original research. Majoreditor 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that you concur means it is not noteable? Since when does concurring with someone else make something not notewothy? If the moderators of yahoo and find it noteworthy enough to filter questions coming from Kyle and blocking him from asking new questions after bringing up a few verses that imply Calvinism is correct, how is that not noteworthy? Is Yahoo! a small company? As for "orginal research" whatever the hell that means, how about you do some research period and do not delete research willy nilly because it doesn't fit with your personal opinion? You do know what research means right? And if the references show there is a strong bias against calvinism on yahoo answers, how is that not noteworthy? Again, is Yahoo! a little insignificant company? Yahoo! Answers has a whole page to itself on wikipedia, is that because it's not a noteworthy site?

Like Yahoo! Answers hypocritically says naysayers, cite your sources.

The section in question doesn't cite reliable sources and is clearly original research. We don't do that here at Wikipedia. Please see

WP:OR for details. If you can't cite reliable secondary or tertiary sources then the material is subject to removal from the article. Thanks. Majoreditor 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"Notable" would mean that multiple, non-trivial treatments in

WP:NOT

. Single examples of anti-Protestantism are not appropriate within the scope of this article. If they were, this article would blow up to an unmanageable and unreadable size.

--Richard 05:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this entire subsection because the decline in the number of Protestants is not, in itself, evidence of anti-Protestantism. Obviously, many Protestants left because they felt they would fare better in a Protestant country than a Catholic one, or at least in a country that was more congenial to Protestants. However, if we wish to make this case, we need to support it with facts that make the case directly rather than just pointing to the decline in the number of Protestants.

Suppose someone were to argue that the decline is due to a difference in birthrates, or a large number of conversions of Protestants to Catholicism or a higher rate of Protestants leaving the church to become atheists. Obviously, none of these hypotheses is the likely cause of the dramatic decline in the number of Protestants. BUT WE HAVE TO PROVE OUR CASE. It is not sufficient to wave our hands with high-level statistics about the number of Protestants. We need to find a reliable source who has actually done research on the causes of the decline in the number of Protestants and then present the results of that research.

--Richard (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the

talk) 11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Courts did, however, enforce the ne temere decree. Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No thy did not. Get a grip. RashersTierney (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did.

The use of the decree to extract commitments in mixed marriages led to enforcement in Republic of Ireland courts such as the Tilson v. Tilson judgement where Judge Gavan Duffy said "In my opinion, an order of the court designed to secure the fulfilment of an agreement peremptorily required before a mixed marriage by the Church, whose special position in Ireland is officially recognised as the guardian of the faith of the Catholic spouse, cannot be withheld on any ground of public policy by the very State which pays homage to that Church." Irish Law Times Report LXXXVI 1952, pages 49-73 Mooretwin (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tilson v. Tilson was judged on a pre-nuptial agreement between the parents re education of children. On appeal to Supreme Court it was so held. It had nothing whatever to do with the courts interpreting Ne Temere. RashersTierney (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... find a reliable source that says that significant numbers of Protestants left the Republic of Ireland because of the "ne temere" decree or the "Tilson v. Tilson" case. If possible, avoid "hand-waving" articles that claim significant numbers left without statistics to back it up. The best source would be some sort of survey asking those who left the reasons for their emigration. --Richard (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A clear case of 'Causal Reductionism'. "Reliable source" is the benchmark.
  talk) 11:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While, "inefficient", another way is to use both terms in two separate statements characterizing both positions. This may be best in the long run. Abortion seems to have gone that way, for example.Student7 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We DO have NPOV language: they oppose same-sex marriage. No one cares about their "support of one-man one-woman marriage", the issue is their opposition to same-sex marriage. Saying otherwise is POV when characterizing their opponents. And it's not just their anti-abortion stance at issue, it's the opposition to comprehensive sexual education, support of anti-sodomy legislation, opposition to no-fault divorce laws, access to birth control, etc. If you want to spell these out, that's fine, but replacing "reproductive freedom" with "support of Right to Life for the unborn" is not just POV, it's wrong. Glaucus (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted an entire paragraph tonight because it had a request for sourcing that is SEVEN YEARS OLD! People are adding to a paragraph without providing any sources. If there is major disagreements between majority Catholic countries and Protestants then name them and the sources should be easy to find. I don't know of any modern country, other than Ireland, where there is tangible anti-Protestantism. Is it a serious problem in France or Italy? Then provide some sourcing. A scholar, some violence acts against protestants, laws discriminating against them, etc. Alatari (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is unsourced and is not anti-Protestantism per se but opposition to some protestant sects and charismatic catholicism, often by people who are protestants themselves. Unless a source is provided that it is a type of anti-protestantism, I will remove it. TFD (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071110183527/http://sabbah.biz:80/mt/archives/2006/10/21/christian-zionism-the-doomsday-code/ to http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/10/21/christian-zionism-the-doomsday-code/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Protestantism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/apr01/identity.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428062021/http://pewglobal.org:80/reports/display.php?PageID=811 to http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=811
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050729001139/http://www.freedomhouse.org:80/religion/country/index.htm to http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/index.htm#nigeria

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading some books on Russian history, and there are some statements from these books that support the idea that anti-Protestant sentiment was articulated by some leading members of the Russian Orthodox Church.

For example, the book The Political Thought of Yu. F. Samarin, 1840-1864 by Loren David Calder (Routledge, 2019), is about the Slavophile Yu. F. Samarin. And there is this passage in it:

" In this time of testing the real champions of Russia's Orthodox Church were

https://books.google.ie/books?id=Ofe-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT99&dq=Prokopovich+anti-protestant&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9-Kad5PfoAhWjo3EKHfPWCW8Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%20anti-protestant&f=false

And the book The Cambridge History of Russian Literature, edited by Charles Moser ( Cambridge University Press, 1992) , has this passage:

"To his contemporaries, Stefan Yavorsky was known first and foremost as the author of the anti-Protestant treatises Vineyard of Christ (Vinograd Khristov, 1698) and Rock of Faith (Kamen very, 1718)."

https://books.google.ie/books?id=6FQ7ALNZXdUC&pg=PA40&dq=%22To+his+contemporaries,+Stefan+Yavorsky+was+known+first+and+foremost+as+the+author%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifz7Gc6PfoAhWnTxUIHefWDRUQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22To%20his%20contemporaries%2C%20Stefan%20Yavorsky%20was%20known%20first%20and%20foremost%20as%20the%20author%22&f=false

This book, Under Caesar's Sword: How Christians Respond to Persecution (edited by Daniel Philpott & Timothy Samuel Shah, Cambridge University Press, 2018 ) also provides some evidence for anti-Protestant views held by some modern-day Russian Orthodox clergy:

"Orthodox leaders are often virulently anti-Protestant as well, describing Protestants as “totalitarian sects” that use “hypnosis, subliminal encoding, mind-altering drugs, and other satanic techniques" to induce people to convert. One priest pointed to an Orthodox publication that asserted Protestants have a deceptive character, meant to lure potential converts by false talk of Christian love."

https://books.google.ie/books?id=uHRJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA196&dq=%22one+priest+pointed+to+an+orthodox+publication%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVxp2P6PfoAhWRonEKHfjSDaEQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22one%20priest%20pointed%20to%20an%20orthodox%20publication%22&f=false

In light of this, I suggest a section covering anti-Protestant activity from Russian Orthodox clergy could be added to this article. 188.141.25.160 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is a bit of a word salad at the moment:

• It seems to think that the Spanish Inquisition applied in the HRE, whereas they were different crowns. The Dutch Inquisition was not the Spanish Inquisition, etc.; in any case, the Inquisition was not an organization but a procedure with effectively autonomous staff in each city/diocese.

• It looks like it is cut and pasted willy nilly, so that a word like "crusade" is used without its meaning being clear: it seems to say that the Spanish Inquisition was a crusade, which is unjustifiable if we are being precise about terminology, and non-encyclopedic language if we take it as an analogy.

• It uses the giveaway keywords like "popes" and "princes": "church" and "state" are more NPOV and less inflammatory.

• It is repetitive, circling around a few generalizations that, I think, can be said better simpler.

The "anti-Protestantism" page should IMHO be about prosecution/persecution/pogroms not intellectual opposition or nonviolent ethnic bigotry, and needs to be very careful with NPOV. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NY I have edited the worst paras of the History section, so I think it is now more NPOV as far as it goes: I have tried not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But still, the whole article has a structural fail that the body fails to deal with the subject advertised in the opening sentences of the lead, which is so broad it could/should include 9-year-old Catholic schoolkids throwing rocks at kids from the neighbouring Protestant school: I have adjusted the lead somewhat to have more of a political/institutional/military focus, but still the article is unfocussed. If there had been relevant citations, it might have warranted keeping.

Anyone want to explain exactly what this means and why it's not sourced (section on Ireland):

"The Penal Laws had a lasting effect on the population, due to their severity (celebrating Catholicism in any form was punishable by death or enslavement under the laws)"

Enslavement? Never mind "death"? Where's the RS for this text? Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]