Template talk:Religion

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The main players[edit]

Shouldn't these be in some sort of order? I.e., by number of adherents, or alphabetical? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Judaism really isn't one of the "main players" at 0.22% of the population... thoughts? Anyone? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
"Major" instead? Only a moron would try and say that we need to include $cientology or Zoroastrianism are major ones. However, according to Adherents Judaism is quite far down the list. Indeed, the only reason people think it's major and prevalent is because of the amount of power Jewish religious pressure groups wield in the US - while we can justify its inclusion based on this fact, would it be right to do so? Anyway, enough guffing, perhaps "Major religions" is a better phrase. Scarlet A.pngmoral 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It also depends on what you mean by "Jewish". The religion, the ethnic group, the state? The Jewish lobby is powerful in the US sure, but it's not really lobbying for anything particularly religious as far as I am aware.I could be wrong though--BobSpring is sprung! 19:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I already edited it to only list the four largest religions, in order according to adherents.com. I also moved you folks' comments from the section below, which is not about this. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While Judaism may not have a significant present membership, surely it should be included as it is the founding for both Christianity and Islam. Also I would contend that it punches well above its weight in its effect on global politics.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that's more the nation/ethnic group, echoing Bob above, than the religion per se. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

More recent discussion[edit]

It may reflect badly on us if we don't include Judaism, first of all, because its absence is very conspicuous. Second, Judaism has a very, very long and important history, even though it doesn't have very many adherents today. Lyra § talk 01:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Even if Judaism is significantly smaller in terms of number of current adherents, Jewish history is one of the longest and most important: The Jews wrote the first half of the Bible. Jesus Christ was Jewish. The Jewish people are the basis for both a ancient civilization and a modern nation. Besides, the absence of Judaism as a "major player" might give new users and readers a terrible wrong impression. --Oniontalk/edits 01:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone for a dissenting opinion here? Lyra § talk 03:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You won't get one from me; I support the addition of Judaism to the list of "major players". Though I'm not exactly unbiased about it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to re-open this. I just don't think that Judaism is a "major" or "main" religion. Should we add, perhaps, a 'supporting cast' section - Judaism, $cientology, Mormonism? Thoughts? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from rehashing what Onion and I said above, there's not much I can say. Blue (pester) 04:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Jewish history is not one of the longest and most important; Jews wrote the first 3/4 of the Bible but so what; JC was one, who cares; "the Jewish people" is not a religion; and we are including them so not to give a "terrible wrong impression"? I just don't think that as a religion Judaism is a "major player". ħumanUser talk:Human 04:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll be honest. My first thought after not seeing Judaism here was "What the fuck?" I'll be direct here--even though I disagree with the rest of your post: Not including it smacks of anti-Semitism. It really does. Number of adherents matters little when Judaism is so culturally entrenched. Blue (pester) 05:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I was pre-prepared to simply ignore accusations of anti-semitism. Come up with something better, since you're wrong. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of the idea of adding a "cameos" or some such section? (I forget where I typed that - below, maybe?) ħumanUser talk:Human 06:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being so obviously wrong. I'm done now. Blue (pester) 19:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The entire issue with Judaism is that if you snub it in any way shape or form it's supposedly "anti-semetic". Even coming out and saying that "antisemitism" is just a magic boogey-word used to stifle any criticism of Israel (which it totally is) is antisemitic. This post here is antisemitic. And if saying that a religion isn't as important as it thinks it is because it's way down the list by number of adherents is antisemitic, then I have to accept that I'm a proud antisemite! Scarlet A.pngmoral 19:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Religion articles"[edit]

Might need to be worded differently so as to imply this is just a sampling of them? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "selected supporting cast", working off the "main players" riff. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Guide to... articles[edit]

These keep turning up in the random section, can we stop that? Or are they pretty good? IIRC they are just fits and starts. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

By removing the religion category from them and replacing them with a more specific one. Or switching the dpl to read a different category. If you want to do a lot of work, you'd set up a maintenance, i.e., hidden, category, on all the religion articles except the ones you don't want to appear and dpl that. This leaves the religion category, the "master" category on each page. Scarlet A.pngmoral 19:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
How about the template adds a "hidden" cat so it only links to articles it is on? Is that easy to do? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


I agree with Human's removal of FSM from the main players list, if I were bold I'd do it myself. The FSM in the image is good enough for a joke. --Oniontalk/edits 02:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pastafarianism debate[edit]

The ALMOST main players was going to be the middle but the removal can make me happy if there is a "Small religion" section in there to --LOL Foliver LOL

There is, it's called "Selected supporting actors" -- Nx / talk 20:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It might take us a few days of getting used to you before making you happy starts becoming a priority. Just sayin'... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hardly something that needs "debated". It doesn't merit special inclusion. End of. Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In favor... What just me?[edit]

Not in favor[edit]


We have so many articles on Christianity that I propose that we have a separate template for them. ТyTalk. 20:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's superb idea. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty, off to go screw with templates. BBL. ТyTalk. 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Added Athesim[edit]

I added Atheism to the template, cause on the idea of "religion", it's a critical head topic. But I didn't know if i needed to put something like "Not a religion" in parens.Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Much better than mine, thank you! Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-religion and anti-religion are certainly main components of religion as a concept, but definitely shouldn't be lumped in as religions themselves. I also pondered adding something in like "maltheism", possibly even "ignosticism" there, but I don't want to be too specialist or go away from the non-religions in that third section. Neither do I necessarily think humanism or secular humanism (though secularism itself might be worth adding) as those are non-religious moral codes, and technically have little to do with religion in themselves. ADK...I'll analyse your street sign! 15:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Given that we are RW, and rather critical of the whole thing, I wondered if putting the criticism 2nd, rather than 3rd might highlight it better. Some great articles are in the category 'atheism', which people can find if they click on the 'atheism' link in the sidebar. Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that should be what the atheism category is for. If it's religion, I'd keep it with religious concepts primarily and criticism anti-religion secondarily. ADK...I'll coach your diet pill! 15:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)