Talk:Anti-Catholicism in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV - whole article, especially introduction[edit]

First of all, should anti-catholicism in the US gets its own page seeing as NPOV policy warns against splitting off a sub-topic in order to present a biased view without balance? Perhaps this should just be under Catholicism, in a criticism section? I'm not sure why Anti-catholicism in the US is such a special case it should be separate to all discussion of anti-catholicism. Is this undue weight?

Anyway, working on the assumption that one can have a neutral anti-catholicism article, as is being worked on for the antifeminism article, the introduction instantly implies that all anti-catholocism is always bigotry. Arguments aside whether it is or isn't (I'm not saying it isn't or is never), this is not NPOV. Is all criticism of various beliefs or ideologies necessarily bigotry? If you are antiterrorism, are you a bigot against terrorists? If you are anti-abortion, are you necessarily a bigot against abortion?

The editor who's written this introduction has tried to sneak in the bigotry POV by enclosing it as a quote from someone, but this sort of quote, an opinion rather than a definition from an unbiased source, belongs in the body of the article, not as the introduction, because it implies that this is the mainstream or factual explanation of what the topic is. Also, it then substitutes "anticatholicism" with "bigotry against the roman catholic church".

The entire article has a similar pejorative tone and fails to "write for the enemy" in presenting the justifications of anticatholicism. Some of the language used, such as discussion of the failure of Al Smith's bid for presidency, is not what one expects of a NPOV encyclopedia.

Some balance is needed surely. If others agree, we should move to re-arrange and re-write parts of this article to be in the spirit of NPOV policy. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010: The observation of historian John Higham about "anti-Catholicism" would have some weight if 1) he had ever spent time in the North American theocracy known as Quebec, where the public school system =was= the Catholic school system, most elected officials were clergy, and women could not vote in Provincial elections until 1949, - - or 2) had lived in the states of Massachusetts or Connecticut when these were dominated by Catholic legislators and a) Jewish physicians broke the law if they told Jews anything about how to plan their family, b) artificial means of birth control had to be smuggled into the state from elsewhere. The paranoid is characterized by misunderstanding or making things up. Yet anti-Catholic information often comes from apostate clergy whose reports of doctrine and personal experience are not made up, but actually lived. As a matter of opinion, the charges and definition proposed by Higham is treacle. Ed Chilton.

The comments above (mine) support those of the writer 27 May 2008 who questioned the POSSIBILITY of a "neutral point of view" and opined that the initial two paragraphs are pejorative in tone. I extended criticism to the use of the "Higham quote" at the bottom - as if to report the words of this worthy iconic figure inoculates the article from any other expression of contrary opinion. Oh? Try that on some weak-willed, easily intimidated person, but on me you waste your time. I am one of few persons who has collected and read the full literature on Catholicism written by Paul Blanshard. And that literature will never die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.142.167 (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the above helps to improve this article or contributes to any other article. Do you propose another article, or what? Are you suggesting the church with 1 billion members over 2,000 years has sometimes been less than perfect? Hardly surprising, I would think. BTW, my ggrandmother went to "convent school" in Quebec in the early 1800s and emerged, as she entered, a dedicated Presbyterian, not unusual at the time. And Catholic schools were often regarded as the "best." I doubt they were government sponsored in the early 1800s though.
Most legislators in the 19th century, before and early 20th century did indeed try to insert laws that described their own faith. Sunday "Blue Laws" were fairly common, among other things. Were these resented? I think you are saying, "Yes, they were." Don't see how that does anything for this article, though. Student7 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
should it be included. yes, it is a topic of serious work by many scholarly over the last 100 years in the US, Britain and Canada, etc. Should it be part of an article on Catholicism--no it deals with very different people, ideas and institutions. The issue is not whether the Church was devilish, it is how people who believed that behaved in terms of their motivations, ideas and politics. Were they bigots? well if the RS say that then we report it. Billington's book is outstanding and has never been challenged by any RS I know of.Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current article title is "anti-Catholicism." It is not "Good justification why anti-Catholicism exists." Everyone thinks their bigotry is justified. But I don't think there is an article justifying the Holocaust, nevertheless. Anyway, would have to be a separate article IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

__________

Legal historian here: This is a wildly inaccurate article about the history of the United States. I agree with this commenter that this article not only lacks a NPOV, but is deliberate misinformation about US and world history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:7F5:6000:FCD5:D98E:9E9E:7FA7 (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Stewart(Stuart Leibowitz)[edit]

There needs to be at the very least a section dedicated solely to the daily show and or Comedy Central http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/28/comedy-centrals-anti-catholic-bigotry/


Chinablue888 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement[edit]

This edit in 2007 introduced substantial text pasted from this March 2000 article to Anti-Catholicism, which was the base of this article. Barring verification of permission, this material will need to be removed or revised in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright policy. I believe that even the identified quote from this author is likely in violation of our non-free content guidelines, which permits "Brief quotations...to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea," but prohibits "[e]xtensive quotation of copyrighted text...." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion[edit]

A Blaine supporter coined this phrase in the later 19th century, stereotyping the Democratic Party and maybe miscasting Blaine as well. It backfired costing Blaine the Presidency. Not really sure how to handle this and it has other connotations (political) that are really too much for this article. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain's 19th century Anti-Catholicism[edit]

Mark Twain wrote anti-Catholic (and anti-Anglican for that matter) material into his now little read, "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". It is now generally accepted that his statements were, indeed Anti-Catholic.

The paragraph that was deleted read: "In his best-selling book of fiction, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court (1889), author Mark Twain clearly voices his opinion that the church was primarily responsible for the backwardness of the Middle Ages and that enlightenment only came with Protestantism."Yankee Anti-Catholicism". MT, His Time, Catholic Church. Virginia.edu. 2010-09-11. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)"

Actually, the collapse took place because of the disorganization of Rome, and the responding influx of uncivilized barbarians. The church tried to civilize them and, in the process was somewhat converted to the conquerors. But they preserved what they could of civilization and kept things going until society could be rebuilt.

The church started dozens of universities in the middle Middle Ages, most of which are still runnin, from which Aquinas, Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme, William of Heytesbury, Ockham, Bradwardine, Robert Grosseteste, Albertus Magnus, etc. emerged and started Science perhaps after 1277. Protestants prefer a later date because it matched the breaks from Rome. This is not reality. For "proof" they point to Galileo. But the latter was after the Renaissance. And Galileo, et al, upset everyone. Not just Catholics.

What is wrong with the Virginia.edu footnote? Does the editor disagree with that? Student7 (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twain comment dubious[edit]

The article, as it stands, focuses on Mark Twain's attitude toward Catholicism, implying that he agreed with Protestant anti-Catholics. I'm not a Twain expert, but IIRC he was hostile to all religions. That is, his POV differed deeply from the POV of Protestant anti-Catholics. Oaklandguy (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct, but it is simpler to detect Anti-Catholicism in "Connecticut Yankee" (to give a concrete example) which may have deliberately played into a willing American audience, not particularly appreciative of Irish-Catholic immigrants. His ideas may have evolved. He may not have wished his anti-religious attitude to become known, since royalties would constitute a major part of his fiscal legacy to his family. Since this article is not an analysis of Mark Twain's evolution into agnosticism/atheism, it seems reasonable to reproduce what he wrote and was widely read and believed when he wrote it. Student7 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that they say Twain was anti-catholic, as if he had a special place in his heart for his hatred of all Catholics. Twain himself tended not to hate people for their personal religious associations, but instead detested all organized religion in general. Twain once even said that Christianity in general had shed enough blood for ships to sail in. Twain was basically just anti-religious, like Thomas Paine.[1] 99.108.198.222 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Religion

Papal interference in American politics[edit]

The charge that the Pope would interfere in American politics is the oldest one in the books, and one editor seems to suggest it is happening. ("bishops didn't invent this. It was the pope (the church). BTW, from the church's pov the politicians were abetting murder. Can hardly expect them to hand out medals!") For the Pope to order a bishop to deny communion to a senator because of the senator's vote on legislation certainly looks like interference. Kennedy of course rejected the notion that he would follow the Pope's orders at Houston in 1960. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is nativism (or something) to think that the pope is dreaming up ways to influence American politics. His reach is more global. As far as I know, all bishops are supposed to deny the sacraments to people abetting abortion (or murder or anything regarded as a continuing mortal {deliberate} sin by the church, and one for which the sinner is clearly not remorseful. Not just abortion-oriented). It is a global proscription. Not aimed per se at Americans.
I would hope that Woman-a-Day Kennedy would not be the national spokesperson for American Catholics, but there you have it, I guess.
Student7 (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This allegation, no matter how unfounded, is probably behind the fact that full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Holy See were not established until January 10, 1984. See Holy See-United States relations. NorthCoastReader (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nativist section[edit]

"The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics." This is a direct quote from the source, but the fact that it is a direct quote is not acknowledged. The same goes for "The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, which (unsuccessfully) ran former president Millard Fillmore as its presidential candidate in 1856." 71.184.241.68 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smith's candidacy[edit]

A respected editor inserted material from "1928 election" article that particularly touched on Anti-Catholicism. This was rv by yet another respected editor with the complaint that it was already in the main article. It seems to me that these paragraphs touched so much on Anti-Catholicism that it seemed reasonable to bring them forward. The article itself touched on many things, I am sure, besides anti-Catholic attitudes. Just my opinion. Student7 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to avoid duplicating material in both articles beyond a necessary minimum. In Wikipedia, this means putting a stub section in one article summarizing the other. I initially favored making the 1928 section here a stub of United States presidential election, 1928, and moved text from here to there, but post Rjensen's edits I think it makes sense to go the other way; that is, put a stub "Anti-Catholicism" section there, and move relevant details to here. Ylee (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacists not required to fill all Rx-es based on personal belief?[edit]

The following was deleted:

"Some pharmacists have been dismissed for refusing to fill prescriptions for abortofacients and birth control. A poll indicates that the majority of Americans holds that a pharmacists conscientious objections should be ignored in these cases. Several states have passed laws requiring that pharmacists fill all prescriptions regardless of belief.(ref)[1](endref)(ref)[2](endref)(ref)[3](endref)"

This was deleted with the edit summary that it need a WP:RS. While this is now "common knowledge," I would agree that it still needs a RS. What is unreliable about the Washington Post and ABC news? Student7 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is needed is a RS link that shows it is anti-Catholicism. In fact the pharmacists are fired for refusing to do their job. Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholicism infallably teaches that abortion is a mortal sin. Thus RC pharmacist filling RX is similar to an RC priest divulging confessions. Yet, priests are legally protected, but pharmacists not, why? 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pharmacists are licensed by the state government and have to follow state law. Rjensen (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A most egregious case censored from article?[edit]

The article should discuss the "Boerne City versus Cardinal Flores" scandal, a trial case, where the white anglos-saxon protestant elite, that makes SCOTUS, verbosely prevented the freedom of religious excercise desired by the mostly latino and irish catholic citizens of the USA. In Europe many newspapers wrote that shameful case was the modern equivalent of a "Mary Queen of Scots trial", and how the mostly rich US protestants are more equal in their worship rights, compared to mostly poor US catholics. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read City of Boerne v. Flores that way at all. If you have WP:RS that state what you have said above, I suppose they could be added. In Europe, old buildings are a dime a dozen. In the US they are rare. If we called a 1923 building "old" in Europe, they would just laugh! Student7 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Student7 is right. note that all three Catholics on the Court agreed with the opinion. As of 2012 there are zero Protestants on the Court. (it now has 6 Catholics and 3 Jews) Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias complaint[edit]

This article currently does not contain the word "hysteria" anywhere in its text, which shows the article is severely biased towards the white anglo-saxon protestant male elite point of view. Anti-catholicism in the USA was/is not calm or civilised, often it was outright hysteria, moral panic and borderline pogrom, including physical injury. The article should depict that on-going plight of Pope-faithful irish, hispanic and negro people honestly. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legs[edit]

"Legs, who had mostly voted for Republican Dwight Eisenhower, now gave Kennedy from 75 to 80 percent of their vote" Legs? Huh??? 1Z (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's humorous vandalism & i repaired it. Rjensen (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson[edit]

I'm objecting to the Jefferson section as an opposition to Catholicism qua Catholicism. The secondary sources support that view:

On page 148 Onuf notes how “Jefferson’s identification with Jesus, as a reformer who dared to challenge priestly power, led him to question the clergy’s Christian credentials." On page 150 Onuf continues talking about “transformation of the various sects” where “people would demand more control over their churches” as opposed to a “priests monopolized religion.” He is clearly talking about organized religion in general. His comment about Jefferson’s concern for Latin America was merely an example of Jefferson’s opposition to organized religion in general. It was not specifically Catholicism but organized religion in general that offended Jefferson (who was a unitarian at this point). [4]

Halliday repeats this theme. On page 229, he notes Jefferson “never abandoned his intense suspicion of organized churches." It is at this point that Halliday uses the quote the you inserted into our article. [5] Jason from nyc (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite to 1940s letter[edit]

I've removed the edit added by Felixpappilardi098 about the Catholic church's antisemitism for three reasons. First, the tone violates WP:NPOV. Second, the source does not support the stated claim. The letter cited is from 70 years ago, and presumably doesn't reflect any current position. Third, it is irrelevant to the topic of this article. Agtx (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anti-Catholicism in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Feinstein[edit]

I feel that this was a significant event of anti-Catholicism. Senator Feinstein seemed to be very critical of judicial nominee Barrett's Catholic faith, stating that ‘The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You’ and that this gave her concern. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mbunson/sen.-feinstein-grills-catholic-nominee-the-dogma-lives-loudly-within-you

The anti-Semitism of the liberals[edit]

The WP:LEADPARAGRAPH includes a quotation by Peter Viereck that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals." This seems a needlessly strident and somewhat opaque statement for the lead. It's well-sourced, and is attributed in the text, thus not in Wikipedia's voice, so that is all fine, but must we pick a quote that seems to attack one group (or two: the intersection of the anti-Semites and the liberals) to make some sort of point about anti-Catholicism?

And what is the point? Is the intention here to make some sort of not-very-subtle dig likening the perceived hypocritical intellectual and effete snobbism of liberal Protestants who disdain conservatives as bigoted anti-Semites, while simultaneously viewing themselves as righteous and moral despite their anti-Catholicism, as just another kind of "liberal anti-Semitism equivalent"? Regardless if that is or isn't the intention, it's hard for me to see what this contributes to the lead, or to the article as far as clarifying the history or the state of anti-Catholicism in the United States.

Beyond that, there are only four attributed quotations in the lead, Viereck being one of them, and I don't believe that this characterization of anti-Catholicism represents one of the major viewpoints about anti-Catholicism at a level so significant that it rates as one of only four such in the lead. Imho, I'd go further: I don't believe it represents even a significant minority of anti-Catholic views in the United States, which would exclude it per WP:UNDUE.

In addition, the word 'anti-Semite' (or its derivatives) appears nowhere else in the article; the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and in its current state, it does not belong in the lead. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, only majority and significant minority views should be considered in the article; fringe views need not be mentioned at all, and I believe this may be a fringe view. If it can be substantiated as the view of a significant minority, then it could be moved down to the body, and perhaps summarized in the lead. But in my opinion, it should just be removed as WP:UNDUE. Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a historical note: this quotation was present since day one of the article in 2007, when it was spawned from Anti-Catholicism. It was added to that article in Jan. 2006 by SPA 68.127.36.142 (talk · contribs) who lasted one day and ten edits on this article, and then disappeared. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dogma lives loudly[edit]

I'm not gonna edit war with User:Sundayclose, but I'd highly recommend including something about the Senate's treatment of Barrett. This has been brought up on this page before but it seems to get ignored each time. It's suspicious that any mention of anti-Catholic sentiment post-2010 gets quickly removed, as if some people here are gaslighting American Catholics by passively insisting that anti-Catholicism is a purely historical concept. Bartholomite (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV. We are not here to right great wrongs or to write a newspaper. We don't have to scoop a story and report it before the next news cycle; we can wait for the dust to settle in political controversies before writing about it. We don't have to (nor should we) make sure our point of view is heard above all others, no matter how great the cause might be. We are here to build an encyclopedia. And by the way, I'll ask you to tone down the innuendo about "some people here gaslighting American Catholics". Editors, even Catholic editors, can try to uphold objectivity without themselves being anti-Catholic as your comment suggests. It is possible for someone to disagree with you without being anti-Catholic, or to disagree with a Jewish editor without being anti-Semitic, or disagree with anyone without prejudice or hostility. Notifying frequent editor to articles related to Catholicism, Elizium23. Sundayclose (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gaslighting isn't neutrality, friend. And WP:RECENT doesn't require silence regarding the past decade. Sometimes cases even from as recent as three years ago may be notable enough to reference. Wikipedia is not a newspaper but it's also not a paper (please read). Bartholomite (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENT doesn't require silence, but it does require caution with recent events. And WP:NPOV requires neutrality, which is not reflected when you source an opinion piece and use it as the voice of Wikipedia. The purpose of this article isn't to eradicate or even reduce anti-Catholicism; it is to objectively report on it with a long-term perspective. Your edits didn't reflect that. You have provided zero evidence of gaslighting here. Who exactly are you accusing of gaslighting in this article? Give us some diffs that indicate this gaslighting. Sundayclose (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events.[edit]

I think there could be a section of the article that responds to more recent events of anti-Catholicism. The main anti catholic article has multiple examples of anti-Catholicism in 2020. For instance there seems to be a disproportionate amount of media attention to the Catholic Church sex abuse cases as opposed to sex abuse cases within the public school system. There is notably an uptake in anti-catholic conspiracy theories. For example the qannon group has claimed that dc is under Vatican control (quite similar to so of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories) and another conspiracy has claimed the pope has been arrested for pediophilia.does anyone know whare these mentions should go in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.250.102 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral wording in the lead[edit]

The lead compares anti-Catholicism in the US (a religious-based bigotry) with "racism". This is an extremely controversial idea and not one that most mainstream historians of race and ethnicity accept. The lead should remove the word "racism" unless editors are prepared to neutrally cover the entire scholarly controversy, as it's written in reliable sources.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scholars are indeed comparing racism and anti-Catholicism. Who says otherwise?? The article by Mannard in footnote 1 states: "Two other forms of nativism, anti-foreign radicalism and Anglo-Saxon racism, also increased. Besides believing the newcomers to be inferior races, nativists associated them with labor problems and socialist ideologies.." Look at 6 items from recent scholarship:
(a) "Challenging Racism and Anti-Catholicism: The Sisters of St. Joseph and Catholic Education in Early Twentieth-Century Florida " by BE Mattick - American Catholic Studies, 2021. (b). "Anti-Catholicism, Islamophobia, and White Supremacy in the United States." by Alexander, Scott C. in Overcoming Orientalism (2021): 245+. (c) "Anti-Catholicism in Arkansas: How Politicians, the Press, the Klan, and Religious Leaders Imagined an Enemy, 1910–1960 by Kenneth C. Barnes 2017 (d) Hickins, Nora. " ' We Want No Hatchet-Wielding Amazons:' The Feminism, Racism, and Nativism of the Women of the Ku Klux Klan." (PhD U Colorado 2018). (e). Topolski, Anya. "The dangerous discourse of the ‘Judaeo-Christian’ myth: masking the race–religion constellation in Europe." Patterns of Prejudice 54.1-2 (2020): 71-90. (f). Forsell, Gustaf. "Blood, Cross and Flag: The Influence of Race on Ku Klux Klan Theology in the 1920s." Politics, Religion & Ideology 21.3 (2020): 269-287. Rjensen (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States&oldid=1217256433"