Talk:Religious

message: Whoever is disputing the neutrality of this article, please explain yourself here. The definition offered is the same as that of any respectable dictionary. My credentials are that I covered the Catholic Church clergy abuse scandal intensely for two years for the Boston Herald, and I continue to write about it on occasion for Knight Ridder newspapers. During this time I have I delved deeply into Canon Law and Catholic liturgy, discussing the same with pre-eminent Catholic theologians. One may also note that I am Jewish (as well as African American) and during the heat of the coverage, attended Mass practically weekly, paying particular attention to ritual and the homilies of Bernard Cardinal Law and others. I'm not being defensive, but who could possibly be more neutral than a Black Jew writing about an arcane aspect of the Catholic Church with which I have become quite familiar? I certainly have no agenda regarding this.
The reason I felt the need for the entry is that I found Catholics and non-Catholics alike to be confused about the meaning of the word "clergy," many assuming it includes nuns as well as priests. Likewise, Catholic bishops and other church leaders regularly will use the word "religious" in their explanation of policies, even though it's unlikely the general population knows what they are talking about. The same is true with the phrase "particular law," which, after its use by bishops at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting in Washington in 2002, was misinterpreted by scores of journalists in attendance as being the absolute law of the church, which it is not. That definition is too arcane, I believe, to merit a Wikipedia entry, but not so religious.
I stand by the definition and welcome any explanation of its lack of neutrality. Until then, I cannot possibly see what that could be.
robinbirk
The reason I added the tag is because only a Catholic view has been represented while the term religious has a separate meaning for every religion. This info is already covered in Religious order. freestylefrappe 20:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Not every special-use noun merits an encyclopedic article.  The content here is minimal, and (though it is valuable) it is better explained in context with religious orders, or elsewhere.  At an absolute minimum, if not renamed to be Catholic-specific, it needs to be renamed Religious (noun).  The objection voiced by opponents is, I think, that any careless searcher for the topic "religious" (which, as its normal adjective form, is very broad in meaning) would end up directed to a small, somewhat technical bit of Catholic practice.  This falsely gives the impression that WP is primarily or abundantly Catholic, which it isn't.  I support the tag until this is renamed or deleted. Xoloz 06:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

message: Christian only. There are Buddhist monks and nuns, are they not religious? No religious Muslims or Hindus at all? This is horrendously biased, I don't see how that is even a question. KillerChihuahua?!?
::I haven't seen any such use in English for other faiths.  And the article is not at all about people who are religious.--Samuel J. Howard 04:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias