Talk:Anti-Catholicism in the United States
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Thissubarticle is kept separate from the main article,Anti-Catholicism, due tosize or style considerations. |
 | Text and/or other creative content fromAnti-Catholicism in the United States was copied or moved intoHistory of religion in the United States withthis edit. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error |
First of all, should anti-catholicism in the US gets its own page seeing asNPOV policy warns against splitting off a sub-topic in order to present a biased view without balance? Perhaps this should just be underCatholicism, 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 thisundue weight?
Anyway, working on the assumption that one can have a neutral anti-catholicism article, as is being worked on for theantifeminism article, the introduction instantly implies that all anti-catholocism is alwaysbigotry. Arguments aside whether it is or isn't (I'm not saying it isn't or is never), this is notNPOV. 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 similarpejorative 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.
__________
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2603:300B:7F5:6000:FCD5:D98E:9E9E:7FA7 (talk)15:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be at the very least a section dedicated solely to the daily show and or Comedy Centralhttp://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/28/comedy-centrals-anti-catholic-bigotry/
Chinablue888 (talk)02:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This edit in 2007 introduced substantial text pasted from thisMarch 2000 article toAnti-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'scopyright policy. I believe that even the identified quote from this author is likely in violation of ournon-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]
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 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), authorMark Twain clearly voices his opinion that the church was primarily responsible for the backwardness of theMiddle 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 whichAquinas,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]
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]
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]
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. SeeHoly See-United States relations.NorthCoastReader (talk)06:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"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]
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]
The following was deleted:
"Some pharmacists have been dismissed for refusing to fill prescriptions forabortofacients 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 aWP: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]
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]
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, 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]
I'm objecting to the Jefferson section as an opposition to Catholicismqua 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]
I've removed the edit added byFelixpappilardi098 about the Catholic church's antisemitism for three reasons. First, the tone violatesWP: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]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links onAnti-Catholicism in the United States. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)06:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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
TheWP: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 inWikipedia'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 perWP: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. PerWP: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 asWP:UNDUE.Mathglot (talk)11:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna edit war withUser: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]
I think there could be a section of the article that responds to more recent events ofanti-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?— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.184.250.102 (talk)01:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
