Talk:Clerical fascism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I checked three books I have on the subject, and all of the use the term clerical fascism without capitalization of the word "Fascism." --Cberlet 13:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to the industrious Wikipedian who tracked down the ISBN's.--Cberlet 00:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian movements and fascism

Serious scholars list Christian Identity and sometimes Christian Reconstructionism as being fascistic. But attempts to link the entire Christian Right to fascism are not considered appropriate by serious scholars of fascism. Perhaps certain leaders and some tendencies--but not the entire movement.--Cberlet 20:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Iron Guard

Is the Iron Guard really "clerical fascism"? I'd always associated that term pretty closely with the Catholic Church (note that all our other examples are of Catholic countries), and the Iron Guard were not. Furthermore, I've generally seen the Iron Guard defined more clearly as actually straight out fascist, rather than merely "clerical fascism" (which generally encompasses regimes like Dollfuss's or Salazar's that are not usually seen as being straight up fascist). john k 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this all could use decent citation as to who has used the term to refer to whom. As for the Iron Guard: probably more direct involvement of clergy than anyone else in Europe except the Ustashe, so unless being Roman Catholic is part of the definition of the term, they should qualify. {rior to being called the Iron Guard they were actually called "the Legion of the Archangel Michael". - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran

"It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist…" Certainly no question that it is clericalist, but are we saying that there is no question whether it is fascist? It certainly has some elements in common with that, and it has been called such, but "without question" (uncited, no less) seems way too strong. - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, corporatism and nationalism are defining components of fascism. You certainly can't accuse the current iranian theocracy or Hezbollah (who have many communist secular members) of the former, although Hezbollah is certainly a nationalist party. Although both may be authoritarian (again, tenuous in the case of Hezbollah), the fascist label is a lazy and politically POV one. I have thus removed the offending sentence.Felix-felix 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also just removed the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the see also section-which is also entirely inappropriate, for reasons given above.Felix-felix 07:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly POV. It is not sourced and is OR. I will remove the sentence if there is no objection. Agha Nader 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I've removed the sentence about Iran, including the recently added (and very poor quality) citations for the sentenc-namely an op-ed from the National Review(!), the second from the Third World Traveller, which doesn't support 'clerical fascism' in Iran at all, and the last which carries the quote; "The National Council of Resistance of Iran, a Paris-based group opposing the clerical establishment, called the Nobel award "an act against the religious fascism ruling Iran.". In short, all the citations supplies are inadequate, and therefore I've removed the lot.FelixFelix ^talk 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist , and possibly its ideological allies such as Hizbollah.

Hussein Khomeini has denounced the Iranian government as the "dictatorship of clerics".

--Patchouli 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that just because some dissident said something it should be presented as fact in Wikipedia?. Agha Nader 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• Do you think that deleting sources recklessly and dismissing everything as opinion and alleging academics are uneducated about Iran is the way to go?--Patchouli 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make ill-considered insinuations. Which source have I recklessly deleted? The answer is I have never even removed a source you added. I have never dismissed any academic as uneducated. No undue weight will be given to dissident views or any other views. You have proven to be a unilateral in your actions (i.e. reverting to the absurd POV statement "It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist"). This will not be tolerated. Agha Nader 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

You are a dissident yourself. You are disagreeing with the facts. Please read the article on honesty since you call everything POV and OR.--Patchouli 01:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. If you think your addition is fact, then I suggest you read WP:POV and WP:OR. Agha Nader 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

The sixth "source" is a blog, and blogs are not considered as reliable sources. Agha Nader 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• Many news outlets have a blog section.--Patchouli 01:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We often hear from American Conservatives sources cricism of foreign regimes dominated by Theocratic Elites (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan), what is interesting is to investigate whether a number of American Groups hold views which might be deem authoritarian and theocractic.

Please examine the following Wikipedia articles on Theocratic Movements in America, [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]

--149.135.114.65 (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC) [[5]]

The fifth "source" is an editorial, and is the views of the author. Why do you wish to present it as a fact? You do this when you say "It seems without question..." Agha Nader 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

The third source doesn't even mention "clerical fascism". Agha Nader 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

The first source is also an editorial, and is the view of the author. Agha Nader 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• Several analysts have characterized the Islamic Republic of Iran as a clerical fascist state.--Patchouli 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, since "several analysts have characterized the Islamic Republic of Iran as a clerical fascist state", it should be presented as a fact that it is a clerical fascist state. Agha Nader 01:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

No; we state, "analysts have characterized the Islamic Republic of Iran as a clerical fascist state" in the same way that the Soviet Union was described as an evil empire. Better?--Patchouli 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV section on Iran, again. Providing citations where people call Iran fascist, or point out that it's a theocracy are not good enough. This is about clerical fascism, and as such is about specific fascist (ie nationalistic, coporatist, militaristic, anti-communist, anti-liberal) policies of churches, not any authoritarian theocracy that people feel like slagging off. If you have an axe to grind, take it to Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran or similar, where it might be relevant, not here, where people who are interested in the church actually participating in fascism have to read this irrelevant POV nonsense.FelixFelix ^talk 07:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli, once again, has unilaterally reverted the article and added a POV section. The few reliable sources he gives are not about Iran as a clerical fascist. The subject of the articles are about another matter, briefly mentioning Iran is clerical fascist is not enough to support Patchouli's edit: "It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist…" Agha Nader 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

And again, including all the work I did on the references section and the wikifying. This is very uncollegiate-changes should be discussed here first-and, as I've said already, no evidence has been presented for the inclusion of the current Iranian government, other than patchouli doesn't like them.FelixFelix ^talk 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We might want to say (using the above citations) that some opponents of the regime in Iran have accused it of being clerical fascist, but I wouldn't want to say anything stronger than that. Besides the above citations, by the way, I believe Gary Trudeau had a character in Doonesbury make this accusation circa 1980, someone might want to track that down and cite it. Interesting partly because the term had less currency at the time. - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You might, but one would have to find citations where they were accused of 'clerical fascism' rather than 'fascism', and even then you'd have to show WP:NOT. I'm against the inclusion of name calling by (quite possibly justified) opponents of theocratic authoritarian regimes/societies, not because I particularly want to defend them, but because, taken to it's logical conclusion by including all said regimes/societies, it would become wildly divergent and miss the historical point of the article. 'Fascism', as Orwell said, is a disastrously overused word (take a look at the terrible fascism article for an example) which usually just means something/someone that you disagree with. Lets at least try and keep it real guys.FelixFelix ^talk 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look through the citations. So do they not use the term "clerical fascism"? In that case, they are definitely not citations for this. But if they use the phrase, then they are. I'm almost certain that the Doonesbury did, but I could misremember after 25 years: he might have said something like "holy fascism". - Jmabel | Talk 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian Democrats????

Someone recently added Christian Democracy in Italy. Clearly mildly clerical, but how are they fascist? I'd be astounded if you could find a reputable source that says so. I am removing pending citation. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violation

Under the "see also" section a link to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is given. Why was this link added to this article? It seems that this POV inspired edit was added by user Patchouli. Please see [6]. This edit and similar edits on various Iran related articles is very disturbing. This is because it shows an edit pattern that is less than something we would expect of a good Wikipedian. I will remove this link unless there are objections. Agha Nader 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Walter Laqueur section

I'm minded to delete this as irrelevant and unhelpful, any naysayers?FelixFelix ^talk 07:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. This debate deserves some lines in the article, as it is now. But the article itself needs to be developed and improved.JBarreto 11:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And why not? It has nothing to do with the historical phenomenon of clerical fascism, and having a section essentially saying "Walter Laqueur thinks that clerical fascism is a term which should be applied to completely different groups of people who have had no relationship to European Fascism", fails notability, I think. There are plenty of aricles about various religious authoritarians, this article is about a European phenomenon of christian churches and churchmen colluding and participating in 20th centurty European Fascism.FelixFelix ^talk 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be right in the substance, but not when you conclude that the "Laqueur section" is "irrelevant and unhelpful". In fact, "clerical fascism", "islamic clerical fascism" and "islamic fascism", for example, are often used today in connection with totalitarian or authoritarian doctrines and movements of islamic inspiration. Political terminology has always been subject to semantic oscillations. A new concept or definition of "clerical fascism" is trying to arise, but is there any concept available instead? "Clerical" does not mean "Christian" or "Catholic", so the question is open. I think you have a good point, but you should defend it by presenting arguments against this semantic change. Deleting is not a good solution in this case, because you can't solve existing debates by suppressing them. Perhaps the 'Laqueur section' is somewhat inflated and out of proportion in comparison with the main body of the article, but there's plenty of room for development and improvement. Frankly, what should be deleted is that ridiculous final sentence, which intends to solve the question with an authority argument: «This is a highly controversial, political viewpoint not consistent with the original meaning». Just present the debate, give all the pertinent information and let the readers judge for themselves.JBarreto 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that 'clerical fascism' is a term commonly used for what is frequently termed 'islamofascism', which has it's own article, I note. Clerical doesn't mean christian, but 'clerical fascism' is a specific term for a specific historical phenomenon, and just because Walter Laqueur has triesd to appropriate the term, doesn't make that use necessarily noteable. If a section in a specific article is irrelevant, then I don't see a problem in deleting (or moving) it, this happens in articles all the time. I agree about the final sentence, it certainly should go, but it is also correct in that the Laqueur definition is irrelevant and unhelpful. How about putting a link to Islamofascism, or somesuch in the see alsoo section?FelixFelix ^talk 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get this discussion. The "Walter Lacquer section" is only a paragraph, and is not about him, but gives him as an example of a scholar who uses the term in this way. Lacqueur is widely accepted as a leading academic authority on fascism, so it is not wrong that he is here. Certainly, other academics could be named to flesh this out, but I don't see the problem. BobFromBrockley 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Laqueur is of course a notable scholar, but we should be careful about including any stray thought that a notable scholar has ever had. Can we substantiate this idea as having bearing beyond just Laqueur? john k 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Walter Laqueur is not the wikipedian next door, as you and me, but if he was the only scholar to commit or accept this apparent "semantic abuse", his opinion would be a simple curiosity not worth mentioning. If you know other academics who make Laqueur just "an example" of this, cite them! Any way, I find this question interesting, as many discussions about terminology may be quite revealing. The problem here does exist, and it arises in the case of "islamofascism" as well. Is it acceptable to apply the concept of fascism to current day islamist radicalism? See the article Neo-fascism and religion. JBarreto 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV-section: "Overuse of the term"

The section is factually good, but it is written like taking the opinion of political theorist Roger Griffin, which doesn't make Roger Griffin's point any service. It would be better if the section was neutral, so that the reader may decide for that obviously sound standing point for her/him-self. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an article in progress within an encyclopedia in progress. The section I created isn't obviously finished. Even its title may be a provisional one. I have already bettered the whole article Clerical fascism and would like to improve it much further. If you don't take Prof. Griffin's opinion, please debate it, or add another qualified opinion. To simply call the section "POV" is kind of counterproductive and hostile behaviour. Are you familiar with the current academic debate on clerical fascism? Can you cite any better sources? That is is the point. JBarreto (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Late answer: No. I haven't read anything about it. My objection was purely about the writing style, i.e. editorial. Regarding prof. Griffins opinion, I believe I thought it sound and preferable, but it doesn't matter now, when the article is corrected. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pius XI never was a fascist

In Brazil, many clerics were also fascists.One exemple is D. Hélder Câmara.In fact, catholic church even having some fascists, ever was a fascist organization.Pius XI never was a fascist.In fact, during 1920 decade, he told that french fascists organization, must be closed. Agre22 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

Jean Calvin

I think Jean Calvin, one of the original Protestant reformers, could be counted as a clerical fascist since he literally was a dictator and a pastor at the same time. He burned so many witches that it would unbelievable today, something that barely compares to Franco's nationalist regime. In many ways, Calvin is similar to Girolamo Savonarola, who was famous for the bonfire of vanities. The US has not been spared of this, since Cotton Mather was one of the toughest and roughest puritan leaders back in the old days. ADM (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Millenialism

When writing about clerical fascism, one of the theological ideas that keeps reappearing is millenialism (or the opposite amillenialism). The belief in a divine reign on Earth is of course behind every fascist religious regime. I would try to source that properly however. ADM (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples of clerical fascism -"Obraz"

Clerical fascism is a phenomenon characteristic to the period prior to the Second World War. The term clero-fascism, ESPECIALLY as defined and referred to IN THIS Wikipedia article applies to the concrete regimes who claimed to be clero-fascists and who governed their countries by this ideology.

There is no place for 'Obraz', an obscure Serbian neo-fascist (or however they define themselves) organization, in the list enumerating real former clero-fascist regimes like the Italian or Spanish ones - it simply has no sense nor logic. Therefore, please avoid using Wikipedia for settling your inter-ethnic disputes or local(national) political animosities.

Current clero-fascist parties, organizations and personalities could eventually be listed in a separate section of the article, though it has no sense in my opinion as these entities generally have little power or influence and none of them governs a state.

Encyclopedia is not a place for personal show-off, please respect it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.39.152 (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)