I don't see why there has to be a whole article on criticism of any religious group. Every religion is controversial, by virtue of the fact that each divides the world neatly into its own categories of good and evil.
Are we going to create similar pages for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Unificationists?
All we have to say is that some ex-members of Group X said they felt pressured to do Y or believe Z and they're glad they got out. Or that other religious groups disagree with a particular aspect of doctrine or practice.
Nuns should get married. Monks don't actually "do" anything. Priests are all gay (or not enough are gay). Televangelists get rich off of donations. And worst of all, these people think they alone know the "real truth".
All these criticisms are centuries old. They don't need a separate article.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
: I agree. In general, I think criticism of any group (religious, political, whatever) should generally be incorporated into the main article of that group as a subsection. I also think there needs to be a section documenting how a group describes/defines itself. Just couldn't resist putting in a couple sentences. (the wikipedia siren song got me) [[User:Wesley|Wesley]]
:How about [[anarcho-capitalist critique of libertarian socialism]]? -- [[User:Tzartzam|Sam]]
:: Don't know enough about either of those to say. Perhaps in general a critique could be given its own page IF the criticism has developed into a movement or social force of its own? I think that [[anti-communism]] might be a good example of this. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't think criticism of them is its own movement per se, although a good bit of the criticism undoubtedly comes from the evangelical anti-cult "movement". (And I'm using the term "movement" very loosely, for lack of a better word. Help welcome.)
:: Has this already been discussed on meta? Should it be? [[User:Wesley|Wesley]]
----
I have moved the link to [[Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses]] over to [[Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues]]. My reasons for this are:
#The text for "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses" says: ''Criticism levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses can go here until what is factual and what is not can get hashed out sufficiently to be put in the article on Jehovah's Witnesses in a neutral manner. '' This is what the Talk page is supposed to be about: a discussion forum to "hash out what is factual and what is not."
#I am not in favor of seeing a page dedicated solely to criticism and charges levelled against an organization, be it the Jehovah's Witnesses or anyone else. No one else seems to be interested in criticizing the organization here, on an encyclopedia that tries to maintain NPOV. The only activity the page has had (other than one contribution from [[User:Wesley|Wesley]]) has been to add, remove, add, and remove the opposing viewpoints links. (I have already stated my reasons for keeping the opposing viewpoints on the main page -- they are viewpoints presented in contrast to the "official" Jehovah's Witness links.)
#Controversial organizations (including the Jehovah's Witnesses) frequently try to equate the term "criticism" with "attacks" and "persecution." Criticism is seen as a form of "religious persecution," and the organization can therefore cast itself as a persecuted religious minority, in order to elicit sympathy. (Which is also why the topic of the Holocaust is frequently brought up in discussions of this sort.) Also, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not seem to be fond of admitting that they are indeed a controversial organization, despite the fact that many other religious organizations see them as such. Whether or not this is justified, it is still an important fact and thus worthy of inclusion.
Please feel free to disagree, and discuss your reasons here. -- [[User:Modemac|Modemac]]
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
