Talk:Rwandan Genocide and the Roman Catholic Church

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Cleanup issues[edit]

The article does not need lengthy quotations. These must be summarized, and quoting must be limited only to key phrases. `'mikkanarxi 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral POV[edit]

"The Christian church has started the first step on the long road towards atonement for its crimes by accepting that its actions were wrong; 'The archbishop of Canterbury has apologized on behalf of the Anglican church and the pope has called for clergy who are guilty to have the courage to face the consequences of their crimes.' [3]" This last part needs to be reconstructed. It clearly violate's Wikipedia's NPOV by declaring not only what's "right and wrong", but goes on to say that it needs for atone for it's crimes. It is unthinkable and unacceptable to most people what the Church did, but it's not up to Wikipedia to say so.--Andrex 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous title[edit]

Suggesting that Christianity was complicit in this genocide is utterly absurd. For those of you out there that have not been to Africa (whereas I have), Tribalism comes first before any religion. This is one reason why African-Americans are looked upon with disdain in Africa. African-Americans can not trace their heritage to their original tribes and therefore are disliked. The article should be eliminated completely since components are already included in the main article and "Christianity" is not on trial here. Aside from that, Christian clergy helped save many lives more than any other group during the genocide. That, in of itself, makes this article completely useless. Jtpaladin 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mahmood Mamdani has argued that the Church was, along with the government, one of the key organizers of the genocide at the local level. The title of the article should probably be along the lines of Rwandan Genocide and the Church, since the article is talking about the institution in Rwanda, rather than religion. - Banyan Tree 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A balanced article about the role of clergy in the Rwandan genocide should answer a multitude of questions:

Did the archdiocese orchestrate the genocide on part of the church or was the genocide conducted by individual clergymen on the local level without the approval of the archdiocese? (There is no evidence suggesting the church has orchestrated the genocide, but there is also no evidence the church didn't. Inconclusive, more investigation is necessary)
Did the archdiocese actually have any control over local Hutu clergymen who conducted genocide? (Probably not, many acts of violence in April 1994 were based on ethnic hatred that had been stirred up in the preceding civil war. Once the clergy started killing, the church didn't have any means to stop them)
Could the church have made a difference by speaking out against the genocide or would the church have been overcried by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM)? (The church would have been overcried, as the RTLM was very effective, the radio broadcast 24 hours a day, interspersing hate speech with popular music from Zaire, while the church could only give sermons to a limited public in a limited amount of time)
A fundamental question underlying the previous one: Were racial/ethnic loyalties more important than religious ones? (Yes, Rwandans were differentiated between by classifying them as either Hutu ot Tutsi for decades. These differences were more outspoken than the fact that they shared the same religion.)
Was the church above ethnical tensions or was it infected by radical Hutu elements? (Yes, the church was a bastion of Hutus and many Hutu clergymen had close links with the genocidal government)
Did the church incite ethnic hatred in the colonial period? (Yes, the church co-operated with the Belgian government in establishing an ethnic divide between Hutu and Tutsi, which would make Rwanda easier to govern (divide-and-rule policies))
Did the church invent the Hutu-Tutsi divide in the colonial period? (No, the German colonial government which ruled Rwanda-Burundi until 1916 was influenced by racial theories, which branded Tutsi as more European)
Did the church act independently or did it act as an accomplice to civil authorities? (The church was mainly used as a tool by the Belgian government to impose colonial rule, as the mission was a cheap alternative to an expensive colonial administration. The church had interests with this system as well, as it would increase their power. The Hutu-Tutsi divide, however was inherited from the Germans and retained as a convenient way of suppressing the population).

Between brackets I have included my answers on these questions, but feel free to challange them, as I am not an historian. I'm sure that the church has played an adverserial role during and before the genocide, but the church acted so because of civil authorities (Belgian and later Rwandan ones) expecting them to do so. The church would be expelled if it didn't. You can only blame them of acting out of self-interest (a sin many non-Christians commit as well, as it is sadly inherently human).

The present article does not answer the above-mentioned questions well. It only contains lots of quotes, which have been pulled out of its context. Furthermore the article is poorly written, not only from a historical/sociological perspective, but also from a liguistical perspective (a lack of paragraphs). The title of the article incorrectly suggests that Christianity as a whole is to blame for the Rwandan Genocide, while the local church is to blame. Reading the title I get the feeling that this article has been written with the aim of stirring up controversy (by smearing Christianity as a whole and incorrectly linking Rwanda's status of most Christian African country to conflict), instead of giving information. Wikipedia is not the place to voice opinions. I don't necessarily disagree with its contents, but it needs more clout, and less opinion. Furthermore I agree with previous comments, that the article could be deleted as the controversial role of the church is already highlighted in the main article, or at least should have a major rewrite. --GreatWikiFan 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article blames the institution not the religion. Ask any Rwandan about the role of the church in the genocide and most of them will answer you out of a personal experience. Wikipedia is about facts not emotions or support of a religion over another (I hope this is not what you intend). Bestofmed 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsatisfying move[edit]

I'm not sure I can agree with the current move, as I think it generates more problems than it solves. First of all, there's no phantomatic "Church": there are several, so te title doesn't make much sense. If there aren't any objections, for the reasons I explained in the deletion discussion, I'll move it to The Roman Catholic Church and the Rwandan Genocide.--Aldux 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you intend to reconcile the discussion of the Anglican and Seventh Day Adventist members, as well as the conversions under that title? I'd rather go for an ambiguous (and innocuous) title. - Banyan Tree 14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't find it so innocuous, and I believe that the ambiguity of the title can't be tolerated in an encyclopedia article. And I must admit that I'm simply for cutting out protestants. As I said in the deletion discussion, the Catholics must be treated seperately, because one thing is the Catholic Church, one the Episcopalians and Adventists. The Genocide in relation to the single churches can be easily made by building an article on the episcopalians in Rwanda (i.e. Episcopal church of Rwanda). As for the Muslims' increase, what has been said regarding the conversions in this article would stick no less good, and even better, regarding the Catholic Church.--Aldux 23:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldux, I sincerely can't figure out your stance. You want to "cut out" the Anglican bishops being spokespeople for the government? Of the three parts of the article, the first is obviously specifically about the Catholic church, but is so important much of the prospective content also belongs in History of Rwanda. The second (collaboration) is a general statement made about the Christian clergy during the genocide, and is not limited to the Catholics. The third is similarly a general thesis about conversions from Christianity in general, not Catholicism in particular. An attempt to state "Catholics are Christians, therefore we can ignore the rest of the Christian denominations" is, to be honest, absurd.

There isn't even a Christianity in Rwanda article, and proliferating substubs from an article that is barely above an stub itself is just bad practice. I would be willing to agree to use this to start Religion in Rwanda, formatting the content here so that it is a section. I would further suggest merging Islam in Rwanda into this new Religion in Rwanda article. What do you think? - Banyan Tree 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't attempt to impose the move on you, as it's pretty obvious that you're the expert here. Personally, I definitely would prefer to keep Islam in Rwanda on its own: all world countries have or are going to have a Islam in xxxx article, and the same for Catholicism (we've got Roman Catholicism in Rwanda, and the same for the other African countries). Also, I didn't say we should ignore other Christian denominations, only put them in a new article, that will have to be written anyways, if only because of their number in Rwanda. Regarding Religion in Rwanda, it seems a good idea, only, as I said, I would prefer to keep an article for the muslims in Rwanda; after all, almost everything is stubby in Africa-related articles, it's up to us to expand them.

Regarding the title, lets at least use the plural, The Christian Churches [or "denominations", in alternative] and the RG. Maybe it's because I'm from a catholic country, but saying "The Church" for me implcates immediately only one church, the Catholic. I'm really sorry BT for being a bit of a nuisance, but it's one of my main defects, fastidiousness ;-) Ciao,--Aldux 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we simply call this article "Christianity and the Rwanda Genocide"? Asarelah 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because the deletion process was quite concord in rejecting this title, as it seems to heap on a whole religion the genocide. Also, I must be admitted I shudder at the idea that on the same arguments, as was noted in the deletion process, an article called Islam and the Darfur Genocide could be created.--Aldux 23:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but an article about Islamism and the Darfur Genocide might be possible. Though it would overlap significantly with The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in the Sudan and Justice and Equality Movement. - Banyan Tree 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could title it "Religion and the Rwandan Genocide"? Asarelah 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fine line that this article is trying to tread is talk about religious institutions in a mostly Christian country without lapsing into treating the article like it's talking about that religion as a whole. - Banyan Tree 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be OK with one of the plural options, though it still seems excessively wordy to me. The Mormons and Presbyterians I know consider their religious organization to be "The Church", which is the definition at Church. Everyone appears to want to keep their stubs and avoid creating an overarching article, so I'll leave be. - Banyan Tree 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but the question is would, they consider thir religious organizations jointly considered as "the Church"?. Anyways, it's not all that important.--Aldux 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged this page to Religion in Rwanda. The move to Rwandan Genocide and the Roman Catholic Church is ill-advised as this article describes actions of the Anglican Communion and Seventh Day Adventists, and it appears unlikely that the naming dispute will ever be adequately resolved. - Banyan Tree 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]