Talk:Religion in Spain/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Correct pie division, thanks!

I personally am atheist and not generically irreligious. If someone claims that this isn't important to be depicted separately then I will claim that being a Christian and an Endovelician is one and the same because they both claim that arbitrary mythology is a fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8835:7c00:ed79:3134:fa1:d9c (talk • contribs)

Via the usage of the term: Religious affiliation, religion is used as the ultimate hypernym of any possible personal belief, but that isn't the case

How can religion be the hypernym of itself and of atheism?
Here is Wikipedia. There is no excuse to mimic erroneus state bureau statistical presentations.

Use as a hypernym "personal belief" or "metaphysical worldview".

Metaphysical worldview fits better for the purpose because one might have political personal beliefs.

Both metaphysics and worldview aren't restricted strictly via religion or science; any approach is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:B000:4CF4:8991:3047:A044 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sections

This article needs to be seperated into clearly defined sections to make it useful for Wikipedia. Augustgrahl

Done --Error 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

Under the "TODAY" section, there is a claim that 99% of Spanish university students are atheists or agnostics. These seems dubious...as does the source. Apparently it was taken from the magazine "Commission" (although no specific citation is given). From what I researched, that "magazine" is published by a missionary Baptist organization, whose articles on country conditions generally end with a request for donations to help evangelize the population. This should probably be removed, unless someone has a reliable source for the 99% figure. --Anietor 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anietor,

Why do you think that the comparision with The Netherlands is incorrect? Both Statistics Netherlands and "Centro de Investigaciones Sociológias" are the most reliable sources. My intention with that comment is to help to stop the topic, especially in north Europe, about the conservative Spain, which is no longer true.

Can you explain me your acction?

Best regards, Marjolijn van der Hijden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.164.248 (talk • contribs)

See response in Talk:Spain, where this issue was first raised. --Anietor 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

I think that the first paragraph could be much more impartial:

"Spain, it has been observed, is a nation-state born out of religious struggle between Catholicism and, in turn, Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism." - Is this an opinion? I think religion was an important factor but absolutely not the only one.

"the secular constitution of the Second Spanish Republic imposed a series of anticlerical measures that threatened the church's very existence in Spain" - Well, maybe the government could have done that, but not the constitution, in my opinion. At least there should be a link to the text of the constitution, so that everyone could see it. Anyway "threatened the church's very existence" is too much. You could say that during the Civil war, but not under the constitutional republic.

"...Jews, Protestants, and other nonbelievers"? Implying that Jews and Protestants are "nonbelievers"? IMO should be changed to indicate "non-Catholics" or some such. Gr8white 05:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes...they are nonbelievers. The term is used relative to the Catholic Church. Jews and Protestants made up the largest 2 groups of nonbelievers (in the Catholic faith). The term is not inaccurate or offensive. That's not to say that non-Catholics, as you suggest, wouldn't be accurate as well. --Anietor 05:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"The term is used relative to the Catholic Church." Yes, I'm sure that's what was intended. But as I read it, used without qualification, it could definitely be considered "offensive" to a religious believer who is not Catholic. Any objection to changing it to "non-Catholic"? Gr8white 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point - I don't object to the term "nonbeliever" per se. I'm one myself. The problem I see is the the term has an established usage with a specific meaning in a religious context. So if the term is intended to have a different meaning it should be explicitly stated. The sentence as written jumped out at me when I read it though after examining it I understood the author's intent. But it's precisely this type of language that is used by some groups to marginalize others.

Note the term "heretics" would be accurate here also - those others are "heretics" relative to the Catholic Church - but I think you'd agree that wouldn't be appropriate. Gr8white 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

vegetarians who eat meat

To say one is catholic but only follows the church in an a la carte fashion is not catholic.I can say im a vegeterian but if i eat meat im not.If i say im catolic but i do things against the church ,im not catolic,Im free to form a new religion like protestants did as they broke from the previous cristian church.Im free but burger king isnt mcdonalds and to say im a vegetarian who doesnt practice is stupid. Find a word to define yourselves!but not my religion catholic.

also the stats here are bent. if you look at it correctly.1 in 4 spanish is not catolic(practicing)thats alot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-catholic religion

What about religion before Christianity/Catholicism? --Pewpewlazers 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion in Spain is different from this old article. muslems are growing and jews are coming from northern europe to retire in the southern coast or to raise kids . this article seems more like Catholic Spain... As for jews we are 34000 at last count. Why dont you contact the israeli embassy in madrid for the FACTS. Each time the wiki is OFF, it makes folks think to go elsewhere HOWEVER I always say WIKI is great cause WE can correct it and update it. raquel samper murcia jewish center —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.4.98 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to make the difference between self-declared catholics, and practising catholics, as it is done in the spanish version of the article: -Catholics (Católicos practicantes) 29,2%. -Self-declared, not in practice (Católicos no practicantes) 51,3%. -Agnostics (No creyentes) 8,9%. -Atheist (Ateos) 7,6%. -Other (Creyentes de otras religiones) 2,1%. Islam, protestant christians and jews could be detailed if someone has the data of all of them, with no special mention to jews, which is far from significant in this section (0,0075%). We all respect your religion, but it is not relevant here. It is about religion in spain TODAY, not about history of religions in Spain (no mention to Jupiter or Zeus either). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.248.177 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Section dedicated to Taoism and Paganism

I've tagged both sections for being WP:UNDUE. At the moment they read as promotional material and rely on WP:LINKSPAM.

Unless they can be cited using verifiable and reliable sources to indicate that their presence is significant enough to merit inclusion in this article, I'd suggest that they be removed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Misleading statement regarding Al Andalus period

The text says: "...Christian and Jewish subjects ... could not hold positions of power over Muslims" during the nearly 1000 year history of Islamic states in the territory that is now Spain. This is not the case. The history of those states is chock-a-block with Court officials and military officers who were Christian and Jewish and commanded large numbers of Islamic soldiers and functionaries.TheCormac (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is so, please bring reliable sources to the table. "Chock-a-block" is an opinion unless quality secondary sources are introduced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Religion in Spain. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Which source to use for current data

We seem to have a slow edit war on which data to use. Our current choices include

http://datos.cis.es/pdf/Es3288marMT_A.pdf - dated July 2020 about 3,032 getting this far in the survey - CIS - asks whether Catholic (split practicing/non-practicing), other religion, agnostic, indifferent, atheist, no answer (page 21) 20.3/40.6/3.0/10.5/9.8/14.8/1.0
http://datos.cis.es/pdf/Es3263marMT_A(mod).pdf - September/October 2019 about 17,650 getting this far in the survey - CIS - page 38 - same question 21.5/46.8/2.6/7.3/8.1/12.5/1.2

The first is more recent, the second has more people I also note the preceding questions may have prepped people one way or another. There may be other variables coming into play. Thoughts (including other sources) --Erp (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The most convincing reason in favor of CIS Barometer from July 2020, is that it mirrors the tendency of the last 9 surveys by CIS since November 2019, with a total number of nothing less than around 35,000 respondents in this period, doubling the number of only 17,000 of the "Macrobarometer from October 2019, which is outdated now.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As there was no reply by The Sr Guy, in many days, in this talk page to my arguments, and we can´t wait indefinitely I'm putting the edition of July 2020 in place, which mirrors more than 35,500 respondents view, as it is a poll that confirms the trend of the other previous surveys: November 2019, December 2019, January 2020, February 2020, March 2020, April 2020, May 2020, and June 2020.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)