Why? Why would someone revert this template so that it is not in alphabetical order? This is no apparent meaning to the order that is used instead, and alphabetical order is useful for organizing these topics. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ordered by size of the group. Christianity, followed by Islam, etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? No, it's not; there are only 55,000 Scientologists, yet it is before the Unification Church, which has between 250,000 and three million members. Which brings up the problem of how to identify members of many of these faith groups and number their adherents; it's virtually impossible. Also, it is not helpful to the reader, as it is not clear what, if any order, there is to the listing. Also, you are removing the article on Conservative Judaism. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's based off Major religious groups, which states 500,000 for scientology, and doesn't mention unification church. If you want to move scientology up or down one, nobody cares. It is a much better system to put more widespread and important groups on the top, otherwise the Baha'i Faith is on the top of every alphabetized list of religions. The page about Homosexuality and Conservative Judaism is a sub-page of Homosexuality and Judaism and seems very redundant to have them both on a template that is already cluttered. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

'Usability I suppose your point about Conservative Judaism is well-taken, but why is Mormonism on the template alongside Christianity? Again, since figures for many of these groups cannot be known with any accuracy, they cannot be arranged with any accuracy. Their alphabetical order is evident, though, and it makes sense to arrange them that way for the ease of use for the reader; this order is not apparent, nor does it actually reflect the rationale for its order. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Mish (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. - Epson291 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I read through the article Xanith linked in this template, and it doesn't seem relevant to religion at all. Is there a connection that isn't yet mentioned in the article?

Dybryd (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Islamic states are not like Western states - often not having clear separation between church and state, religion affects all aspects of people's lives, and has legal sanction. The Xanith is accommodated within an Islamic state that implements Sha'riah Law, so it is relevant to that religion (Islamic states are religious states). It is an important example where homosexuality is/has been tolerated within Islam. I have social anthropology work(s) that discuss the Xanith in this context - not available online though. Mish (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A version of the paper is available in her book: , where she discusses this in relation to the Qu'ran, Islam and the burqa. Others have also discussed this phenomenon in context. Mish (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We are looking at replacing 'issues' in articles that start 'LGBT issues and/in ...' or end '... and LGBT issues' with 'matters', as some people are not keen on issues, and just 'LGBT' doesn't seem much better. The proposal is to replace 'issues' in the two templates concerned with 'topics' (ditto for categories), so this template would become 'LGBT topics and Religion'. Mish (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)