Talk:Christian persecution complex

Coronavirus

There is a published article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234870/ this article discusses how the Christian Persecution Complex plays into the growing distrust of science and government and that under this complex Christians who are required to attend service through their laptops compare themselves to Christians thrown to the lions in ancient Rome.

It seems like this is timely, relevant, and would make a scholar-based addition to the article. I'm happy to attempt to incorporate if there is consensus that this would be a useful addition. Strawgate (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment made on 28 February 2018

See Wikipedia:Help_desk#I_have_just_contributed_my_first_article!_How_can_I_get_it_reviewed? Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"...which is synonymous to persecutory delusion"

Dear Dimadick the pharse "The name derives from term "persecution complex", which is synonymous to persecutory delusion."[1] is misleading. The term "Christian Persecution complex" has been coined and populirized by academics in the field of Humanities. It is not related with delusions (though Charles Dawkins might disagree as he suggests that religious beliefs are a form of delusion). There is no published paper that suggests that is a correlation between the CP complex and a medical disease or condition. More, there is no citation in the text. Therefor, I 'd recommend it should be removed. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Our article on persecution complex is located n persecutory delusion, and you have added no information on word coinage. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you are right that I didn't add info on word coinage, so when info is missing, we don't jump into conclusions. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"we don't jump into conclusions."

I don't jump into conclusions. I am familiar with what persecutory delusions are and how they are used by religions. Added a source as a background. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is about certain christians. Not about cults.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dimadick, the persecutory delusion you are reffering to, concerns a minority within a neutral majority and how that delusion helps them maintain their passion for their cause. Christian persecution complex describes the feelings of the majority and the net result is suppressing others. Nevertheless, there sure is a connection bwtween these two distinct entities, but I wouldn't describe it as "backround" Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It is background to what "persecution complex" actually means, and its relevance to cult mentality. And no "Christian persecution complex" does not express a majority of the population, just a few oddballs in the United States. Christians are neither a persecuted, nor a marginalized group. Dimadick (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said that Christians are being persecuted in the West. They (christians) are saying that they are being persecuted. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in Middle East and other non Western Countries

Persecution of Christians in Middle East and other non Western Countries is not relevant to the topic. Chr. Persecution Complex refers to the notion in Western countries that Christianity is persecuted by their goverment when Christian priviledges are lifted (ie morning prayer at school). In M.East, Nigeria and elsewhere there is real persecution of Christians. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Where can we find this definition?--Skylax30 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a definition, it's an explanation. The source you provided (TheGuardian) did not mention Christian Persecution Complex. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"morning prayer at school" In the case of the United States, school prayer has not actually ended. Compulsory prayer has ended. "While students do continue to pray in public schools, even in organized groups such as "See You at the Pole", the lawsuit disallowed schools from including prayer as a compulsory activity required of every student. The success of O'Hair's lawsuit led to subsequent lawsuits by Mormon and Catholic families in Texas in 2000 to limit compulsory prayer at school-sponsored football games." Dimadick (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Talking about persecution of Christians in m. East is irrelevant to Christian Persecution Complex. Two articles which were cited, didn't even mention christian persecution complex. Trying to relate persecution in the middle east to justify the persecution compex in the west, is synthesis. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Source www.religionnews.com does mention the pers. complex. On the other hand, sources are not clear if American Christians understand the PS as happening only inside America. That's why I added official declarations of Evangelica organizations referring to international persecution of Christians. But I will work more on that. If I may present user Τζερόνυμο to the english WP collegues, he has a big volume of anti-religious and pro-muslim work in the Greek WP. This particular article was firstly created by him in the Greek WP, and was deleted as original research. (I don't necessarily agree on that deletion). Obviously he is planning to translate this article to Greek again.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And a small prediction of mine: Soon we will have here one or more of Τζερονυμο's supporters, most probably user names starting with C, G or D.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Source www.religionnews.com does mention the pers. complex only to clarify that persecution complex in USA has nothing to do with real persecution of christians in the middle East. No comment on the rest. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

By George, you got it.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Section "Reality of Persecutions"

The view of George Yancey, that there is hostility towards Christians is upgraded as persecution. I 'd suggest that we change the title of the section so as to match the content of the section. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Dear User:Pepperbeast, will you be so kind as to inform us why you have re-inserted the NPOV template[2]? Why is the neutrality of the article disputed? Reminder: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute "Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Because while drive-by tagging is "discouraged", it is not forbidden and not a reason to remove the tag. PepperBeast (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Τζερόνυμο. The tag can not be added without raising relevant concerns on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge into Persecution of Christians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this previously AfD nominated article be merged into Persecution of Christians or Christian privilege? Or should it just be kept as is? desmay (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Concerns were raised on a recent AfD[3] that this page may seem attack page accusing Christians of suffering from a psychiatric disorder of persecutory delusions. The Center for Studies on New Religions actually found that in the present era, Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world [4]. This contradicts the claim that Christians have a complex. Any sourced material here can be merged into the persecution of Christians article. Excelse (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Concerns were raised on a recent AfD[5] that this page may seem attack page accusing Christians of suffering from a psychiatric disorder of persecutory delusions. The Center for Studies on New Religions actually found that in the present era, Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world [6]. This contradicts the claim that Christians have a complex. Any sourced material here can be merged into the persecution of Christians article. Excelse (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I added a {{merge from}} to the other article and linked to this discussion in both. I'll remain neutral on whether to merge or not. My only concern is that the other article is already quite large and merging this in might be problematic in that this content might be lost in the fray. This article does lack WP:BALANCE and if that is addressed, it may make a merge unnecessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The scope of the article is clearly limited to the United States. The Early Christianity section should be removed entirely - it's not neutrally written and it's discussing Christian polemic (which is a style of writing nasty things about Jews, and later Muslims, in the context of Christians being persecuted). Candida Moss' argument about historicity is being given too much weight (and this is not the right article for it). The writings are not only important for their historicity, but also their impact. Polemic is a literary style that is well-attested to in scholarship, but to say the subject is complicated would be an understatement. Covering it fully is outside the scope of this article.

However, the Evangelical Persecution Complex is sufficiently covered in WP:RS to support a standalone article. (I would support a title change from the vague "Christian"). Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not even "Evangelical Persecution Complex" has significant coverage in reliable sources (preferably academic ones) required per WP:GNG. News sources or passing mentions don't establish notability. Excelse (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Comment I'm not convinced that this is the best choice of merge. If anything, I think it could be merged to Christian privilege. PepperBeast (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. @Walter Görlitz: Can we add a merge tag on Christian privilege as well? Excelse (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that only one merge discussion is to be entertained at a time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it could easily be merged into that article without WP:SYNTH. The content about Moss' book predates any "Christian privilege". Most of the sources that I have found discussing "Christian privilege" have it rooted in manifest destiny, the Discovery doctrine, etc. - I don't think we can add anything to it beyond what the sources discuss explicitly. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no contradiction between the persecution of Christians around the world and the alleged persecution complex of a minority of Christians in the West. It is crystal clear in the article that there is no connection to a psychiatric disease.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Merging false claims of persecution to an article about real persecution would be mixing fact and fiction. Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Merge This article violates WP:NPOV - we do not have any other articles called "Islamic persecution complex" or "Atheist persecution complex" or "Sikh persecution complex". The only mergeable part of this article is the Hostility towards Christians section, which only contains a few sentences. desmay (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is only tangentially related to the topic of this article and should probably be deleted. Elizabeth Castelli's text gives a historical perspective and seems more reliable. Dimadick (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not having other articles persecution complexes, does not violate WP:NPOV obviously, which depends only on its context. More to that, even if it was POV positive, it wouldn't be an argument for merging. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Pepperbeast, I appreciate that you nominated this essay for deletion in the past. This article is more a compilation of passing mentions in newspaper articles than any legitimately recognized phenomenon. desmay (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The article is based on the work of academics such as Elisabeth Castelli, Candida Moss, and others. As for merging with Christian Privilege, I suppose that as no RS is listing CP Complex under Christian Privilege (or even associates it), it would be WP:OR and/or WP:Synthesis Cinadon36 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The flaws should be fixed rather than serve as a reason to merge the article. Both this and Persecution of Christians (and other similar articles for that matter) have to be improved. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support merge to either Persecution of Christians or Christian privilege: Per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLOATED. Several of the cited sources are op-ed pieces (HuffPo, Patheos, Christian Today, etc.), and three of the citations are simply there to prove that certain individuals mentioned in the article work for a certain university. Taking those out of the picture, I counted roughly 10-11 reliable and appropriate sources to cite. In the case of the "Christian privilege", this might be a case of WP:CFORK. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I will strongly oppose any merge to Christian Privilege as it would be OR/SYNTH. Though the two seem related with Christian privilege being widely accepted by mainstream scholarship as a real thing and "Persecution of Christians in the United States" being written off as hyperbole, we can't make the connection on our own without reliable sources to support it and it would make the POV issues editors are concerned about even worse. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm finding myself in agreement with you. How about sending this to AfD? --1990'sguy (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I wasn't involved in the last AfD, but I would support. Upon looking at the sources more closely, I don't see how this article can adhere to NPOV—for example the Cavill source, Anglo-Saxons Saints' Lives and Deaths, is one of countless reliable sources about Saints' Lives and martyrdom in early Christianity, but we use Cavill only because he has used the term "Christian persecution complex". Yet, we can't include other sources on the same subject. This makes it impossible for us to not violate WP:WEIGHT, thus unworkable as a CFORK. (Another option I would support is to redirect).Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks Seraphim System. Please let me know if you decide to AfD this. I definitely will comment. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: Contrary to comments at AfD, this article is far from beautiful. In it's current state it should have probably been nuked or moved to draft as it is now an embarassing mess live in mainspace that someone has to clean up. Unfortunately, I don't think merging it will fix the issues with it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support merge. This article is ridiculously outside WP:NPOV territory and anything salvageable within that territory is already covered under the WP:SCOPE of Persecution of Christians and Christian Privilege. As some of the oppose votes above, though, the "early Christianity" section needs to just disappear from the rest of the treatment. If this concept is supposed to be limited to the United States, it should be limited to the United States instead of worded to imagine that Christianity doesn't actually face persecution elsewhere.—Mr Spear (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is it ourside NPOV territory? Persecution of Christians and C.P.Complex have almost nothing in common. The same goes for Christian privilege. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support merge. I also support sending to AfD, as proposed by User:1990'sguy and supported by User:Seraphim System, as it does not have adequate sources, except for one. The original research of one author is not enough to prove notability. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Original research? What is the original idea presented in the article that cannot be found in the sources? As for sources, there are more than one that is adequate. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The "original research of one author" refers to Elizabeth A. Castelli, who as a professor of an academic institution is expected to produce original research. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Original research on the English Wikipedia refers to synthesizing claims that haven't been made by a reliable, secondary source. Castelli's publications are considered secondary source and on top of that, her work has been reproduced by other secondary sources. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

My remark refers to the fact that the only adequate source is the work of one author ("original research of one author"), and not to Wikipedia incompatibility of Original Research. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Original research of X authors is not a factor in the [[WP:N|notability policy]. Castelli, other scholars, and reliable resources paid attention to the subject.Cinadon36 (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• FocalPoint, Seraphim System, Mr Spear, and 1990'sguy - I've started an AfD due to the sentiment that you have all expressed here. You can find it here: Excelse (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• • Ktrimi991 and Desmay have expressed their opinion, they should be invited as well to AfD discussion as well. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge; the sources are more than adequate to establish this as its own topic. The concern that this might offend Christians is not a policy-based objection per WP:NOTCENSORED, while the concern that this dismisses genuine persecution is something that can be solved by editing it to be more cautious. The article does suffer from being a bit too US-centric (and addressing that would also address that concern), but none of these are things that would call for a step as drastic as a merge; additionally, the people who are asking for a merge need to understand that it is not a deletion - merging this into persecution of Christians would require that the lead and large parts of the text of that article discuss the idea of a Christian persecution complex. I don't think this is what the merge !votes want, but it's important to understand that a merge is not meant to be a "backdoor deletion", so to speak, and that a genuine merge of this material into persecution of Christians would pose far more problems for their stated issues than placing it in its own article devoted to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support merge; this WP:ESSAY should be merged into persecution of Christians or outright deleted. The religious don't suffer from a psychiatric illness, contrary to what this article alleges. Eliko007 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please specify where exactly does the article allege such a thing? Cinadon36 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, Persecution of Christians discusses sourceable persecution, this instead discusses a notable aspect of polemical discourse. Both are notable and independent topics. --Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, as per in depth reasons given by @Aquillion.Resnjari (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per Aquillion and others above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This would be similar to merging chemtrail conspiracy theory into aerial application or cloud seeding; the complex is about the notable discourse, while the persecution article addresses actual events. —PaleoNeonate – 22:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment in partial support. This is mostly a repeat of my comments from the recent AFD. This article should be deleted and the material redistributed more appropriately. There are basically three sets of information here: one, some reasonably-well-sourced stuff about persecution and its perception in the early centuries of Christianity; two, some other stuff about feelings of persecution experienced by (or claimed by, or used as a means of political manipulation by or of) 20th/21st century evangelical Christians; three, some other stuff about genuine hostility experienced by modern Christians. These three do not (and, I think, cannot) make a cohesive whole. The stuff about early persecutions should probably be merged into Persecution of Christians. The stuff about the modern perception of loss or persecution that is sometimes labelled a "persecution complex" is actually a more complex phenomenon and deserves better treatment and a tone that doesn't come off as WP:ATTACK. It should probably be covered over at Christian privilege and/or Religion and politics in the United States. And finally, real and recent persecution of Christians has a home over at Persecution of Christians in the modern era. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose confuses separate issues -----Snowded ^TALK 05:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support merge I think that article itself is problematic with POV as I have raised on its talk page. once the POV and the irrelevant are removed, I do not not see any problem in merging.Tamsier (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merge and expand, After careful review of the sources in the article and those presented and discussed at AfD it is quite obvious for anyone that the topic is a highly notable topic and should be discussed separately. The sources are highly reliable. Absolutely no problem with the sourcing. Just because Persecution of Christians exists is no reason to merge this article. "Persecution of Christians" article can contain a para about this topic and this article Christian persecution complex can elaborate about it in detail. The article Persecution of Christians is already 230 KB and heavily bloated. WP:SIZERULE applies here, hence this is an absolutely valid WP:CFORK for this article. I also agree with other participants above who have opposed the merger. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Those are two different subjects. Sorabino (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification about Moss

Though I appreciate the work Cinadon36 has done on the article, there are some pressing issues. As the article creator, he is presumably familiar with the sources so I wonder if he could help sort some of this out. In the Early Christianity paragraph it says:

According to Candida Moss[a] the Christian "persecution complex" appeared during the era of early Christianity due to internal Christian identity politics.[7] Moss suggested that the idea of persecution is cardinal to the worldview of Christianity, noting that it creates the impression that Christians are a minority that are facing a war - even though they are numerically superior.

This seems to be connecting different issues. Christians are not numerically superior during the era of early Christianity. The issue I am seeing is that the article skips over a large amount of Moss' book which disputes the historicity of the early Christian accounts. For that is most likely a POVFORK CFORK, as the entire thing rests on her theory about historicity. Right now, I am leaning towards removing this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Seraphim System thanks for the question. Moss suggests that the idea of persecution was cultivated in early Christianity -even though they weren't systematically persecuted (with the exception of 10 years known as Diocletian persecution). That idea carried on, after the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but AFAIK there is not wide agreement yet about her historicity argument. Moss, I think, should be discussed in other articles related to the topic so the argument can be given due weight relative to all the sources. Otherwise this would be a POVFORK. I'm also a bit concerned about Moss' argument that this has "carried on" from the time of Eusebius to present day American politics, as I have not seen any other sources supporting this argument. (Which depends on her argument about historicity). It's going to be difficult to discuss this without turning this article into a POVFORK. Castelli, from what I've read so far, seems to be mostly talking about present day "right wing" American Christianity. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

But this article is a (strongly biased) POVFORK of Christian persecution and a needless fork of Christian privilege, attempting to get to the same place (modern American claims of anti-Xian persecution are unfounded and the merely the psychic pain of lost privilege) through fairly specious treatment of it as a kind of psychological disorder instead of as a sociological phenomenon.

I mean, good on you guys who are working to clean the place up and at least point to the more scholarly treatments. The continuing use of "sources" such as Salon harm the page's credibility and it's probably better to just let the thing die and go to footnotes or new sections of the less viscerally offensive treatments of the concept.—Mr Spear (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

"which disputes the historicity of the early Christian accounts" What historicity? Many of these accounts are based on the works of Eusebius, who is considered unreliable, "dishonest", and biased as a history writer. Though it is somewhat unclear whether he was intentionally fabricating parts of his narrative, or whether he relied on faulty sources. (One of the problems is that Eusebius often quotes lost works by other writers, and some of his suspect accounts may derive from these works. )Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

But I need references to sources that can be used to improve this article ... That's kind of the problem ... there are very few sources dealing with this particular neologism, but very many sources dealing with roughly the same topic. However, there is no clear merge target either. You can't just pass this off as the validity of the historicity argument can be assumed ... is she only talking about Eusebius, or is she talking about Stephen and the content that is actually in the New Testament also? I am still looking through the sources, so if you guys have read them already or have page numbers, that would be helpful.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The text is sourced. It is not significant whether Moss is taking into consideration Eusebius or other Christian authors. She made a point on CP Complex, that point is notable, and our job is to add it to the article, not to pass judgment if she had done a good or bad job. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well yes and no - just because something is sourced doesn't not make it right and we are required to balance the sources. I think the statement on Moss's view is OK but it needs more balance from other sources. Moss has been criticised and her view is not universal, indeed Radner questions her method -----Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, why dont you go forward and improve the article? Why dont you add Radher critique as well (in due weight of course)? Cinadon36 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Its on a list but I have a week of trekking, a book chapter to write along with two projects so hunting down sources is not a priority at the moment -----Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, there is no rush! Cinadon36 (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Stavrakopoulou on Christian Persecution Complex

The following text and citation has been removed by @Snowded: Christian fundamentalists perceive the advancement of secularism as a threat, and persecution of Christians. citing <ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9YtqTW2k2M at 22:40]) It was recorded at the World Humanist Congress 2014, Oxford, UK. Held by [[IHEU]], run by the [[Humanists UK|British Humanist Association (BHA)]].[https://iheu.org/world-humanist-congress-2014/].</ref>. The reason cited at edit summary is that the wording in not accurate. Can someone else have a look and give a hand as I feel it is accurate, Snowded feels otherwise, so how should we proceed? Can anyone offer another version? Thanx Cinadon36 (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If you check I didn't remove the citation or the material, but I made it a more accurate version of what was actually said in a recording (not a published source) and took it out of the lede. So another version has already been offered. The citation is not to a published source but to a answer in a debate and if you listen to the whole thing is in the context of saying they are not really persecuted. The source is not good enough to support Cinadon36 text and it certainly doesn't not belong in the lede -----Snowded ^TALK 09:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh Sorry! I havent seen that you moved it, rephared it (and downplayed) what Stavrakopoulou said. Stavrakopoulou didn't claim that "this may support the idea of a CPC". She was more assertive. Anyway, secularism as a form of persecution is presented in others scholar's work so a line such as "advances of secularism are seen as persecution by some fundamentalist" does belong to the lede.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you have to read her comments in the context of what came before she answered a question. She is pretty dismissive of Western Christians who think they are being persecuted and its far from clear if she thinks they are significant or not. I think I removed the 'up-playing' rather than down-playing anything :-) Also please understand that the lede summarises the article - so material has to be in the main body first and even then may not make the lede -----Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoting from the Bible

is seen as being original research? How odd. Carptrash (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's hear what @Pepperbeast: has to say, he was the one who reverted your addition. [7]Cinadon36 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification tag

Many find it difficult to define the origin of the Christian persecution complex. According to Elizabeth Castelli, some set the starting point in the middle of the 20th century, following a series of court rulings that declared public places to be out of bounds for religious activity (e.g. morning prayer in schools). However, it became apparent in the United States in the 1990s with the adoption of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 as the official foreign policy. A few years later, the September 11 attacks boosted its development. This complex "mobilizes the language of religious persecution to shut down political debate and critique by characterizing any position not in alignment with this politicized version of Christianity as an example of anti-religious bigotry and persecution. Moreover, it routinely deploys the archetypal figure of the martyr as a source of unquestioned religious and political authority".

The bolded sentence is a clumsy phrasing.

So what if this:

"However, it became apparent in the United States in the 1990s with the adoption of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 as the official foreign policy."

Becomes something like this:

"However, with the adoption of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 it became apparent to believers in this type of Christian persecution that it was now official foreign policy of the United States."

It's not a perfect wording but I think it makes more sense Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• Yeap seems better. (a "the" is missing though) Cinadon36 19:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Apocalypticism and expectations

I noticed that this article doesn't cover this, but I remember that in the circle I come from, we expected persecution. We interpreted every difficult situation (including people who shut the door when proselytizing, or "apostates" who denounce problematic practices) to consist of persecution. This served to validate prophecies and affirm the doctrine of the last days, that we were God's chosen like Job or Noah and hence the true disciples, etc. More sources are likely needed especially to avoid synthesis, although this may perhaps be a starting point. This source is not about the group I mentioned and I'm also unsure about its suitability, it's somewhat academic but from a confessional Baptist perspective. My concern will at least be here for others to assess and help...

• Apocalyptic Vision (PDF). Christian Reflection. The Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University. 2010.
• About earlier apocalyptic theology borrowed by Christian movements:
• About persecution expectation: , ,
• About self-fulfilling prophecy:

References

—PaleoNeonate – 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Too unclear and context specific article

This article seems too specifically influenced by US right wing politics and similar western, Christian majority country contexts. I mean, there are places where state atheist or non-Christian majorities do persecute Christians, and this article is about Christians in Christian majority, and historically Christian countries, that cannot handle affirmative action and multicultural diversity, confusing their "persecution" with the real persecution of ancient Christians and really persecuted Christians in other countries. I suggest the article is renamed "Christian majority persecution complex", and rewritten to present the difference between real and perceived Christian persecution, comparing different contexts, comparing with other majority persecution complexes (race, other religions, ethnic majorities, etc.), etc.. The beginning of the first paragraph should be rewritten "Christian majority persecution complex (in the context of United States or other Christian majority countries discussions just called Christian persecution complex) is (...)". 89.153.218.220 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really needed. Times and places where Christians were or are persecuted would not really fall under the "complex" heading. Carptrash (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the article still makes it sound like Christians thinking themselves oppressed is always just complex, which is not the case. The article needs to be clearer on what it means and on how this is an issue of eurocentric/western-centric Christianity which doesn't apply elsewhere, which I think is a failing of the article as it is, that hardly mentions that this is (especially) US protestantism specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.120.120 (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What about the persecution of Christians by Christians?

Anti-Catholicism in the United States, for example, has an undeniable history and they have hate crimes committed against them until now. “The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops currently maintains a list of anti-Catholic attacks aimed at Catholic churches in the U.S. From May 2020 to May 2022, they reported that at least 139 incidents occurred across 35 U.S. states & the District of Columbia.” There is also a case I read, Leger v Louisiana 2009 in which a Catholic prisoner was disciplined and put in solitary confinement for 10 days after complaining that the prison forced him to watch Baptist services every Sunday and destroyed a rosary that was sent to him. (But this is Original Research and probably should not be put into the article). And that’s just current events, I could also mention the KKK and colonial-era anti-Catholic laws.

So shouldn’t this page clarify, at least, that the persecution of Christians by Christians does exist in the United States and the rest of the Western world? I💖平沢唯 (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds as OR tbh. Cinadon36 12:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)