Talk:Religion in the United States/Archive 1

Freedom of religion and secular government
Any particular reason why "freedom of religion" is described as a constitutional gaurantee while "seperation of church and state" is only a tradition? While it's true that the concept emerged as a tradition before the constitution (but the same is true of religious freedom) and the modern practice of seperation of church and state is more extensive than what is included in the first amendment, I think that legal seperation vis-a-vis the establishment clause deserves mentioning.

The Phrase wall of seperation between church and state was first used in a letter that Jefferson wrote to some Baptists in 1808

And... It wasn't a tradition in Colonial America, as shown by the theocracies of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

and in the Rhode Island Colony, which gave religious freedom was to prevent politics from mucking up religion.

The reason is that foes of the constitutional guarantee play semantics in order to discredit freedom of religion. If the establishment clause of the First Amendment is interpreted as not meaning a separation of church and state, it becomes meaningless and powerless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.37.6 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Acceptable wording game"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations

William Howard Taft is listed as a Unitarian, and from what I found on a search indicates he denied the divinity of Jesus. That would make him not a Christian. Taft's presidency ended in 1913. 3 previous US presidents before Taft at the above link are listed as Unitarians. Thus at least Unitarians need to be mentioned as well as Deists.

Thus from an accurate and NPOV, at most that can be said is that since 1913 every US president has claimed to be a Christian.


 * Granted Unitarians are a fuzzy case, since post-60s (Universalist) Unitarians self-describe as non-Christian, and before that, many Christians would have been happy enough to say that for them. But the same issues arise with Mormoms, JWs, Christadelphians, who'd all insist on the term for themselves.  (Taft's particular case I'm not familiar case, I don't know if he said anything beyond the norm for his Denom., considered/characterised himself as a Christian per se, etc.)  Granted this may be a nuance too far for this article, so maybe a weaker wording is preferable for clarity and simplity.  Alai 02:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

My main objection was just that when I looked at this article I saw that you had claimed that all US presidents had been Christians. Far from the case. I'm surprised how few Americans are unaware that Washington and Lincoln weren't Christians. (In particularly Lincoln. That the evidence Lincoln was a Christian is that there is but one almost certainly apocryphal quote by someone who said Lincoln converted to Christianity, its easy to conclude he wasn't.)

What I would think for this article "Religion in the United States" would be the thing to focus on is that fact that the best evidence indicates that every US president did believe in God. No avowed atheists or agnostics in the lot of them. As for what the specific beliefs of each president were, that would best be dealt with in the List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations article. It tends to get all kinds of fuzzy trying to pin down exactly what presidents who leaned toward Deism or Unitarianism, and their exact beliefs. However, barring the unlikely event that some historian finds some shocking correspondence of a past president denying the existence of God, what is in the "Religion in the United States" article about the presidents will not be an issue of dispute.

As for Taft:

http://www.firstuu.com/Sunday_Services/Sermon_Archive/2003/2-9-03.htm

"In 1899 he was offered the Presidency of Yale. He rejected the offer and explained why in a letter to his brother Henry:

"It would shock the large conservative element of those who give Yale her power and influence in the country to see one chosen to the Presidency who could not subscribe to the creed of the orthodox Congregational Church of New England . . . I am a Unitarian. I believe in God.  I do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe.  I am not, however, a scoffer at religion but on the contrary recognize, in the fullest manner, the elevating influence that it has had and always will have in the history of mankind."[13]"

At least some claim that while Taft was religious, he wasn't a Christian in the way most people use that term. User:Rfgdxm


 * Not my claim. (I knew that the original wasn't true, and I'm not even an American...)  I just thought your outright deletion was a tad drastic, and that reworking was preferable.  I agree entirely, that article's the place to deal with their particular beliefs (or their individual bios, if the detail is considerable).  Thanks for the Taft quote.  I don't think that makes him a non-Christian (at least in the terms of Wikipedia's definition, or as the Unitarians of 1899 would have construed the term), but as I say a weaker (and not overly convoluted) statement'd be fine with me.  Alai 03:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There have been plenty of Christian sects that denied the divinity of Christ, from the earliest days. The Messiah-hood/Christhood of Jesus is a distinct issue from his divinity.  Trinitarian accusations of apostasy against Christians who deny the divinity of Christ is an age-old sectarian tactic; giving it official sanction would constitute bias.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.37.6 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"once or more every week" is impossible
article reads "The true figures show that only about 20% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week." well, isn't obvious nobody except maybe priests will go to church once or more _every_ week of their lives or even a long span of them? I'm not saying that for usa and canada, it sounds obvious for every part of the world. a more accurate review of the situation is to find out how many people find religion to be very important for them, or better, how many find god (or "gods") to be very important for them. a few questions of psychological nature could find out if that's the case for a person and if they lie, oh well, there always will be people lying in polls. -- unsigned, apparently by User:161.76.99.106


 * No, my friend, it's only obvious to you based on your apparently limited experience with churchgoers. Now, I will admit that many Catholics only go to church once a week and that's a lot by some standards (for Catholics and non-Catholics alike).  If you're Catholic, don't get bent out of shape.  I'm Catholic too and I have to admit that I considered myself virtuous if I went to Mass once a week.


 * In contrast, however, my wife attended First Presbyterian Church in Augusta, Georgia when I met her. There, the adult congregation goes to adult Sunday School at 9AM, worship at 11AM, evening worship at 7PM (not either one or the other but all three).  Now, obviously, not everybody in the congregation went to all three but enough did to fill the church.  In addition, many of them go to evening service on Wednesday evening.  I know, because I went with her while I was dating her.


 * Since we got married, we moved out of the Bible belt and now go to a Presbyterian church in Northern California. I don't consider myself to be all that religious but we go to church on Sunday morning and to fellowship dinner and Bible study on Wednesday evening.  Wednesday evening is not a worship service so I don't know if you count that as "going to church" or not.


 * --Richard 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was brought up catholic and I know that strict religious observance requires you to go to confesson every Saturday and mass on Sunday. I think the point of that survey was to see how seriously Americans and Canadians take religion. An attempt to find out how often people went to church per week, per month, per year, at all, would give a better idea how many Americans and Canadians practice a religion.

Separation of church and state
Despite official separation of church and state, many churches in the U.S. take strong stances on political subjects.

My understanding of the first amendment is that it puts its constraints entirely upon the government. As in "Congress shall make no laws..." I'm assuming the phrase "separation of church and state" is a reference to the first amendment. So, what's with the word "despite" there? If a church wants to take a stance on a political subject, there's nothing in the first amendment to stop them. This could probably be worded better, like perhaps dropping the implication that they're doing something illegal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Famous J (talk • contribs) 07:18, May 29, 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing to stop them except losing their IRS exemption if they engage in candidate advocacy. --Blainster 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is nevertheless not to stop religious people actually having opinions on the way their country is run. Though it strikes me as a dodgy game to play with your nation. If a priest supported every single point on a candidates manifesto but never actually mentioned his name, he'd be effectively engaging in advocacy but wouldn't actually. Legal wording aside, I think despite is the wrong word.--JABITheW 08:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S. compared to other countries
There seems to be much available information comparing religion in the US to other developed countries, but what about compared to other countries in the Americas? Considering that a large part of Americans are of Hispanic descent and that the US is geographically closer to Latin America than to most "first world" nations, this information would be useful in this article.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The entire first paragraph is about a survey. Think about it from the perspective of someone from another country trying to learn about the United States. He doesn't want to read the entire first paragraph on a survey. I'm changing it to something more simplified and to the point. melbourneman t - March 10, 2007

Freedom of Religion
Is it worth mentioning that while Americans are guaranteed freedom of religion, they are not necessarily guaranteed the freedom to be atheist or irreligious? (Though I am aware US courts routinely uphold the Atheist/irreligious to be just another religious grouping. --JABITheW 08:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And you may also want to ask: If religion is about "truth", as Christianity claims it to be, why should it be separated from the state? Doesn't the state need "truth"? --Roland 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nature of American Religion
Little is said about the nature of religion in America, which is likely to be one of the biggest reasons why America is so religions. For instance, Anglicans in America are much more likely to accept female and gay bishops/priests. This is not the case among Anglicans in many other countries.

Similar differences can even be observed in Moslem, and Jewish sects in America. I have known many Moslems in the US, but it is still unusual for their women to wear veils. Actually, of the Moslem women I know (several from Turkey and Pakistan, already relatively progressive Moslem states) have often stated that they are probably not traditional enough to be tolerated in their nations of origin (at least one of which was born in Turkey).

However, while I have seen little exception to these examples, they are merely personal experiences and may not hold true for the entire USA (I actually live in the mid west). If some one has read a good book on the nature of American religions, a section dedicated to the Nature of American Religion would be pretty keen.

American Religous Identification Survey
This new survey, which has been quoted by several reputable orginizations, has some very different numbers regarding religious memberships than are listed in this article. Has anyone added up all the numbers currently listed on this page to see if they are even under the total population of the US? Maybe we should look at the numbers in this survey to see which one is more accurate. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/aris_index.htm

Look here: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm Major difference is that the wiki figures have been adjusted for refusal to reply - which makes comparisons less drastic, but perhaps misleading. Probably both the source table and the adjusted one should be presented. The study itself seems to have some flaws too - such as considering all no denomination as Xn, even after counting Xn - no denomination AND Protestant - no denomination --JimWae 04:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Harris Poll
The Harris poll cited for the statement that almost half of Americans are unsure that God exisits is an online poll and as such is unreliable. At the least it should be noted that it is an online poll -- and I have done so -- though it really should be pulled. Tdewey 04:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaking the Harris poll with self-selected online opinion surveys. Harris is a professional polling company whose reputation depends on using scientifically sound techniques.  They use random statistical sampling to procure respondents, whether by telephone or online.  And as the cited news report states, this type of online poll tends to be more reliable because they are not subject to the "interviewer effect", that is, the repondents are not biased by talking to a live interviewer.  --Blainster 18:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to removing the poll? It seems somewhat unprofessional if we have unreliable data sources in an article and leave it in...Homagetocatalonia 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comment, or the information about how the poll was conducted by Harris Interactive? They are a highly respected, professional survey company. Their methods are statistically sound, and they are members of the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO) and other professional associations.  Thus the data is professional, and as reliable as any survey can be.  --Blainster 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism?
Just looking through the numbers and Sikhism followers outnumber any other religion by a lot, so I just want to bring this to attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.241.37 (talk • contribs) 14:34, November 9, 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the entry neglected the note at the top of the column saying each one is x 1000. --Blainster 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction needs work. The focus on comparing the US to other "developed nations" is slanted; it gives the impression that that comparison is the only one worth making (as opposed to comparing it to other nations in North America or the Western hemisphere, or even other nations speaking the same language). This is no fault of the editors who wrote it, the slant appears in the Pew group's own external link, among other places. A comparison to the other developed nations may be useful, but it is only one useful comparison that can be made with using the statistics provided.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the "Western hemisphere"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.126.239 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: A 2001 survey[2] found 15% of the population to have no religious affiliation, still significantly less than in other postindustrial countries such as Britain (44%) and Sweden (69%).

This contradicts this page, citing 23.2% for Britain, and this, which claims: However, the Lutheran Church of Sweden (Swedish: Svenska kyrkan) held the position of state church until 2000. As of 2006, 75.6% of the Swedes were members of the church. --Amxx (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Christianity in the United States
The major part of this article relates to Christianity in the United States, the treatment of non-Christian religions is minimal and fails to pick up native American belief systems, should the bulk of it be moved and summary material from here and Buddhism in the United States, Hinduism in the United States, Islam in the United States, Category:Judaism in the United States with something on Native American religion/s be used for a new article here? Paul foord 12:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The less widespread religions are not addressed at all, you are correct. I would suggest just adding material for now, without removing any.Sylvain1972 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

80% of Americans are Christian and the Judaism section is bigger than the Christianity section...this is ridiculous. Attention should be paid to indigenous Native American religions but the fact of the matter is that Christianity has had a thousand times more of an effect on the U.S.A. than any other of these religions you all suggest should fill the religion page of a country THAT IS 80% CHRISTIAN.

STOP DEFINING OUR COUNTRY FOR US...THE HUGE MAJORITY OF US ARE CHRISTIANS AND WANT INFORMATION ABOUT OUR REAL HERITAGE AND NOT WHAT LYING SECULAR LEFTISTS SAY TO FURTHER THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please restrict comments here to discussion of how to improve the article itself: Wikipedia is not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. Thanks, YrPolishUncle (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. You don't want to find out your real heritage. Trust me on this. Christianity does not have a good history of tolerance at all. Sexism, racism, homophobia - absolutely no tolerance. You have slave ships, beheadings, inquisitions, male dominance, and promoted violence in your history book. Thank FSM that this isn't an applicable stereotype that can fit with every American christian. Sadly, it seems more than often some people keep their personal intolerance hidden. When most christians open up their hearts and arms to others, let me know. (Ironically, this was the basic philosophy their own messiah promoted.) Oh well. Nawcom (talk)
 * Please restrict comments here to discussion of how to improve the article itself: Wikipedia is not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. Thanks, YrPolishUncle (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Church and State relations
The First Amendment guarantees right to freedom of religion. It also ensures that the government does not act in the interest or disinterest of religion. Some scholars have argued that this "free market" of ideas forces American pastors to cut overhead and market faith in new and more effective ways. Culture "wars" often have roots in religious differences, but major incidents of religious violence are rare. This is mostly due to the Quaker influence on the nation, which was present in Independence Hall.

The US Federal Government declared itself neutral in regards to religion, in the Barbary Wars. This was shortly after the first President, George Washington declared to Touro Synagogue that the "Stock of Abraham" was welcome in America. George Washington's beliefs (as well as the other Founding Fathers) are often seen as a benchmark from which to approach religion in America. The President, with some Deist and Freemason affiliation, apparently knew of the closeness between the Abrahamic religions and their importance in the Western world. He however, did not speak against Atheists, nor did he make any statements about Dharmic religions, which then as is now without any indigenous base of support in the Occident. Public discourse in America tends to echo Washington's own statements as idealistic rhetoric.

In reality, such stances were then as are now, rather theoretical. Although the sentiments have been broadly applied throughout American history, America's founding population was what one would deem "Judeo-Christian". Most colonists and their families read either New, Old or both Testaments of the Bible. In America, matters of religion are supported in terms of population rather than specific policy. Before Catholics were permitted open worship (1776, etc), the people were forced to follow Protestantism. America preceded Great Britain's Catholic Emancipation, in an attempt for fairness to Maryland.

Judaism's dietary customs, such as making food Kosher, are more or less uncontroversial because of the importance which Jews have had in America from the start. Jews have received more support for their ways of living ever since they had their own country in Israel once again, because that is seen as respectable in American eyes. The American government mostly responds to the needs of the most publicized, or visible religious groups.

What is absolutely certain, is that sectarianism within the United States between population groups, is not identical to government laws. America's government laws do not take sides in that, or between America's majority and their interaction with the global community. These laws have no bearing on the conduct of the general mass of people and their decisions in whether or not to align diplomatically, or refuse to talk with other countries in regards to religious culture.

The laws of the State are only to avoid corruption of the Church, while the Church is supposed to be the moral support behind the State. This is established on the precedent of Roger Williams. Although local governments in America began with religious laws, they did not exclude other religious practices after the American Revolution. The Federal government largely receives its religious support from the Episcopal Church and Catholic Church, free of any binding ties or obligations, (originally to avoid offending Calvinist Yankees) while the Jewish population usually just "grins and bears it" and the Orthodox Church has barely any presence.

This tradition is only because of historical demographics, mostly sourced to Western Europe and not State-sanctioned belief or prejudice. America's religious traditions are mostly colored by influences from England, Scotland, Ireland, France, the Low Countries and Burgundy in particular; the lands ruled or claimed by William III of England. An early national coat of arms proposal indicated this, but was rejected in favor of the Roman-preferred eagle.

Messianic Jewish
What about Messianic Jews in the USA? How many members has this movement? In Germany are the messianic Jews Russians. They descended from Jews. I heard that mostly messianic Jews of America are sensitive Christians!? Can somebody explain the situation in the USA?--84.169.223.109 08:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My revert
Sorry about reverting you, JimWae. I don't know what happened, but something was screwed up when I looked at the diff. At any rate, if the source provides the numbers you changed it to, then the change is good.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"online [...] more truthful"
I removed this from the article:
 * Because these polls were conducted online, it is likely that the results are more truthful, as people are more likely admit to potentially embarrassing beliefs when responding to online surveys than when talking to interviewers in telephone surveys.

First, it needs a citation; secondly, if it stays in, then we need to point out that online polls are self-selected and are therefore produce very biased samples. 70.20.194.59 05:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the online polls conducted by commercial polling companies are not self-selected. You are thinking of non-scientific popularity surveys run by media organizations who don't want to bother with a statistically accurate sample. That is not the case with the Harris Interactive online polls. --Blainster 02:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing graphs?
Hey, those two graphs on the right side of the article are completely mysterious to me. What the heck are they trying to convey? Um.... proper captioning please?

Full sortable table - but descending sort has place value problem still
--User:JimWae June 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this chart because the original one is misleading. It portrays Greek and Serbian Orthodox as if they are different denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.164.133 (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence in lead
While these measures were partly influenced by Enlightenment ideals, they also reflected the pragmatic concerns of minority religious groups who did not want to be under the power or influence of a state church that did not represent them.[3]

Examining the author of the book which is cited, it turns out that he is a theologian. I rephrased this sentence to make it more neutral and correct, since the framers were much more than "partly" influenced by Enlightenment ideals. "The framers were mainly influenced by Enlightenment ideals, but they also considered the pragmatic concerns"... --Michael WhiteT·C 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion in American Life
In the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Ian MacGregor (see - Kirby, M. W. (2006) "MacGregor, Sir Ian Kinloch (1912–1998)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, online edn, May 2006, accessed 14 September 2007 ), the author claims that MacGregor was chairman of an organisation called Religion in American Life whose slogan was "The family that prays together, stays together." However, I can find nothing about this organisation in Wikipedia or the web. Any ideas anyone?Cutler 18:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't know about that organization, but the slogan you cite was coined by Irish-American Fr. Patrick Peyton, according to his article. --Blainster 08:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ReligiousTolerance.org Quote
I was unable to find this quote on the sourced page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm): "Church attendance data in the U.S. has been checked against actual values using two different techniques. The true figures show that only about 21% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week. Many Americans and Canadians tell pollsters that they have gone to church even though they have not. Whether this happens in other countries, with different cultures, is difficult to predict." -- 71.56.30.64 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agnostic/Atheistic/No Religion
This article states that Britain is 44% no religion and Sweden is 69% no religion. However this statistics differ greatly from the Irreligion article, which places Sweden at 46%-85% and Britain at 16.8%. Could somebody please clarify what the correct percentages are? 121.209.200.117 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that to. But besides that, I kind of want to add this information to the article, but I was wondering if someone could do it for me. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.132.1 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian Christians
I heard that in the U.S. there are living some Russians who are members of Baptist communities. In their homeland they were persecuted by the government and that´s why they came to America the last few years. Is here anybody who can tell something more about this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.222.37 (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Revamp of the article
Yesterday I started a revamp of the article, moving some content to Demographics of the United States. Dbachmann has reverted my edits stating that the content I removed fit with this article as it's not appropriate for the other one. I moved just a table and some maps, because other tables and texts are already available in Demographics of the United States. I think all statistical material should be moved to "Demographics"; this article by contrast should treat of the spectrum of religions practiced in the US. Currently it's focused on Christianity&surveys. --Esimal (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that these recent mass edits are much of an improvement. On top of blanking several sections, the material that remains is no longer dealt with in proportion, and I thoroughly disagree that statistics need to be moved to Demographics of the United States if they deal with religion. The Christianity section should be longer than the others, as Christians make up the vast majority of the country, and Christianity has influenced American culture more than any other religion. Additionally, the different denominations and sects of Christianity need to be mentioned here as well. You've done some good work with the other religions, but each section needs to be dealt with in proportion to its importance to the subject.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cúchullain, Wikipedia is not "christocentric". If you want a complete article about Christianity, you can develop it. --Esimal (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

130 edits in one day, no discussion here & very few edit summaries - this does not indicate an effort to work with others. How is Buddhism in the USA different from Buddhism? How does taking data from tables & putting them into paragraphs dense with statistics improve one's ability to compare the data? There are very few citations, and the paragraph below indicates there are streeotyping, POV & OR issues --JimWae (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Christianity was introduced during the period of European colonization, expanding in the North with the extermination and forced conversion of Native Americans, who practiced Native American spirituality, a pantheistic system based on the concept of Great Spirit.

Looks like you want a History of Religion in the US article, but the paragraph below indicates that besides lack of citation there are "lack of real content" issues --JimWae (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The early 20th century was characterized by a continuation of the tendencies with roots in the 19th century. The second half, by contrast, saw the emergence of new approaches, and the move of Buddhism into the mainstream making itself a mass and social religious phenomenon

Here we have problems with boosterism & with proper usage of tense in English. Article should be reverted & proposed changes dealt with in detail on talk --JimWae (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hindu religion is growing in the US, not only thanks to immigration but also gaining many converts. Hinduism is expanding in popularity and influence on the public life.[30] In 2004 the Hindu American Foundation - a national institution spreading Hinduism and protecting the rights the Hindu community of US - was founded.
 * Hindu temples are thriving in the US and recently, in July 2007, a Hindu service has been held to open a senate session.[31] The event has been criticized and disrupted[32] by many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.


 * Wae, you can fix sentences if you want. --Esimal (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Here we have problems with boosterism & with proper usage of tense in English." Answer: 1) I've copied the concept from Buddhism in the United States; 2) I'm not English. --Esimal (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Esimal, you saw earlier that I was working with you on some of the revisions. But some of your comments here give me pause and concern. "Wikipedia is not cristocentric" "Christianity was introduced during the period of European colonization, expanding in the North with the extermination and forced conversion of Native Americans..." To be frank, it looks worrisome that you have a desire to push the idea that Christianity is bad. But this article ought to be neutral ("extermination and forced conversion" sounds rather pushy, to say the least), and it is logical to give more time to the main religions in the US over minor religions (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, practiced by <1% of the population combined). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Evil Spartan, if you want a page with 100% focus on Christianity, create it, or create another Wikipedia named "Christopedia". --Esimal (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the section which states that Neopaganism is the second largest religion in the US. The sources were both pro-Pagan sources, and as such reliable. I also find the claim quite doubtful: according to Neopaganism_in_the_United_States, "Most of the 1990s studies put the number of US Neopagans between 200.000 and 1 million (0.1% to 0.5%)" (the figure you gave was easily the highest of any of them). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Waldron's figure goes back to 2005, not 1990s. --Esimal (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Esimal, some of your comments here do not inspire confidence. No one is arguing that this or any article should be "christocentric", but you have to agree that Christianity has by far the most followers, as well as the longest history besides Native American religions. Therefore it must be dealt with proportionately here, meaning it will get more space than religions practiced by small minorities of Americans. Some of your other edits, such as explaining the spread of Christianity through "extermination" and forced conversion, are also biased. Other edits, such as attributing to all Native Americans some sort of pantheistic religion based on a "Great Spirit", are simply false. This is on top of the poor grammar and phrasing in some of your sentences. This needs to be remedied, and I don't know that Jim's solution of simply reverting and then proceeding on the talk page is a bad idea.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already removed the statements about extermination of Native Americans and Great Spirit. Christianity is not a religion superior to the other ones. This article should treat all religions practiced in the US, and Christianity in the United States should focus on Christianity. --Esimal (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. In any article, information is presented in proportion to its importance to the subject. It is simply dishonest to present, for instance, Neopaganism as if it had equal impact on American life as Christianity. Subarticles are for going more in depth. Obviously no one objects to including info on the minority religions, but the presentation must be proportionate.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article, either in the introduction and in the Christianity paragraph, states Christianity is the largest and most influential religion. This article should treat the essential concepts. --Esimal (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Paganism numbers
This is insane. The religioustolerance.org article is citing 1986 data. That's insanely unreliable. If you go to, ReligiousTolerance themselves even says "[Note: These numbers are grossly exaggerated.]" The last reliable data I could find was , which says 134K Wiccans in 2001. --B (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Waldron (2005) cites 10 million Neopagans. --Esimal (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on what? A study, an estimate, a guess, divine revelation? --B (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An estimate I think (David Waldron. Witchcraft for Sale! Commodity vs. Community in the Neopagan Movement. Nova Religio. August 2005, Vol. 9, No. 1). It's a problem for you if 4% of US citizens are Neopagans? --Esimal (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An estimate? That's worth the paper it's printed on.  Personally, I don't really care how many pagans there are in the country any more than I care how many left-handed sheep herders there are in the country.  That isn't the point.  The point is that this is an encyclopedia and isn't going to print nonsense.  10 million pagans in the country is way out of whack with other sources.  Do you have this book in front of you?  Can you provide the actual quote?  In other words, can you tell us if he says, "according to a Gallop poll, there are" or "I think there might be as many as"?  --B (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I tried to remove this 3 times, and was reverted 3 times. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Call for revert
There is too much poorly sourced, contentious, & ill-written material introduced in over 140 edits in 1 day - a major overhaul of the article that I, for one, cannot distinguish from a hijacking. It is not the job of other editors to fix up tons of specious material introduced by a new user with limited command of the English language, and little to no evidence to work co-operatively --JimWae (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of evangelicals... Merry Xmas and good night. --Esimal (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Tell me, why is it that one guy estimating there are 10 million pagans is right and every survey finding there are something well under a million is wrong? --B (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * B, you've removed sourced statistics. Wikipedia is horribly POV as no administrator do something to stop you. --Esimal (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just having any source doesn't make something correct. You have an Australian college professor's estimate compared with EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOURCE ON THE PLANET.  We don't print nonsense. --B (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I have not been involved at all so far in this dispute, I have been closely watching.


 * And — it's simply too hard to resist saying that 10 MILLION Pagans seem far too ridiculous, so it is a sign of "over-editing", if you will. Sorry, Esimal, but too many changes at once can mean only one thing: other users can't spot all of the errors — it's simply too much to grasp at once. I think B has a point. ~ Troy (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just put both of the stats up? "Probably around 1 million, but maybe as much as 10 million" or something of the like. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's the whole point. It isn't "maybe as much as 10 million".  The 10 million estimate was derived using the rand function.  It's one of the 78.5% of statistics that's made up on the spot.  There's no actual survey data to back it up. --B (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) came here from AN/I). I'd like to suggest a revert, with a condition. The revert should be followed by a summary list of the changes made being posted back here for review, IE> - New pagan population numbers introduced. as a summary of that point, and 'buddhism section reduced beyond fair weight' and so on. That way, problems can be worked through coooperatively here, rather than setting off an edit/revert war. Just my two cents. Also, Esimal, please consider that many, if not most, editors would consider that the US Census data is far more reliable a source than a guy trying to sell his own book about the dangers of and to neo-paganism. Finally, your dismissive attitude towards all the non-christian religions here is really irritating, especially that 'Great Spirit' jive. Next you'll be trying to tell us the tribal people also greet each other with 'How'. They don't. ThuranX (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The more I look at the changes, the more I'm in favor of reverting. We can add any useful information Esimal has come up with back in afterwards, but there's no way anyone can (or should have to) go through all these changes, many of which are dubious, non-neutral, and poorly worded. Again, some of that material might be good, and obviously no one is saying the minority religions should not be covered. But all articles must follow our policies on neutrality, reliability, notability, and consensus, and in this state, this one does not.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would appear that the only one in favor of Esimal's changes is Esimal himself, and it would appear that he is no longer interested in editing cooperatively, given his recent change to his userpage. A revert is called for. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid I don't have much time, it being Christmas Eve. --Cúchullain t/ c 00:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This does need some cleanup, and I agree the ten million figure is pretty ludicrous. So is the six million Wiccans one, which appears to be taken from a source that is actually Christian fears about "witches", not any survey of Wiccans or Neopagans. Maybe they were counting the number of teenagers who watch bad TV shows with "Wiccan" characters in that tally. ;-) -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 04:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Wow. After the posts on AN, I just saw the Neopagan inaccuracies and set about correcting those. Now I'm seeing how badly written this is, and how extensive the recent edits were. I don't know if this should just be reverted all the way back, or what. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 06:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

revert away. The 10 million figure is 1980s evangelical Christian alarmism (backed up by 1980s neopagan pie-in-the-sky fantasies). Reasonable estimates (including partisan neopagan estimates) for 2000 range around 0.3-0.5 million neopagans in the US, or 0.6-1.0 million in the US plus Canada. this is discussed at Neopaganism in the United States. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I believe the article looks good enough, with the exceptions of cases I have mentioned below, for us to keep as is. Esimal has added a good amount of good content in along with some of the more problematic content. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the article

 * These recent edits require days of work to fix up - there are barely any reliable sources for anything. I doubt the value of trying to work on them on the article page - I am going to post here a very incomplete beginning of some points that need to be raised about what to include in the article

History of Religion in the US
 * immigrant groups often came for "freedom of religion" though onvce there rarely allowed it to others
 * many colonies were founded as homogeneous reeligiously
 * many came for economic reasons, and religious reasons are frequently overstated in the literature
 * church attendance among early settlers was actually quite low
 * Great Awakening
 * Anti-Catholicism
 * Anti-Semitism
 * Supreme Court cases
 * Even once other religions were tolerated, religious discrimination was still common
 * prevented from holding office, testifying in court
 * Role of Deism

Role of religion in slavery & Civil War
 * many opposed to slavery did so on moral grounds - moral grounds were based both on religious ideas & on Declaration of Independence

Religions founded in USA
 * include Episcopalian? & role in formation of "Anglicanism"
 * Mormonism, JWs

Separation of Church & State
 * Constitution, 1st Amendment, TJ

Rise of non-Xn religious views (including no religion)


 * Religion in politics

Article should be comprehensive about religion in general & include most relevant stats in table form
 * table needs data for before & after adjustments -- like ABOVE

Sub articles for articles of type: Religion Xy in USA --JimWae (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Turned this into it's own section, so we can address this separately and constructively. Thank you for listing the issues concisely, JimWae. ThuranX (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

@B
As "reliable", Waldron's study should put into the article, as an alternative view. What about deletion of Phillis Curott's figure? --Esimal (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPOV. The "estimate" that there are 5 or 10 million Neopagans in the US is completely unsupported by ANY survey.  We don't publish fanciful claims just because someone makes them. --B (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Neopaganism - undue weight
With all due respect to Esimal, I worry that Neopaganism is receiving undue weight in this article. It is an extremely informal religion (many do not even consider it as such); as such, I'm not sure what I think about the idea of having a section on Neopaganism on par with the section on Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism (more on that below). I notice we do not even have a section on New Age religion, which would seem to be more common (though it too suffers from problems making it difficult to identify and chart). I wonder if we should simply include it in an other section - though of course still leaving in the wikilink to the article on Neopaganism. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good idea, perhaps the section could be on new religions and new religious movements, and we could discuss it all in one. That would take care of the overlap, and could include all NRMs of note instead of just handpicking one.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious sections by weight
I notice that the sections we have on Hinduism and Buddhism are equally large as the sections on Judaism and Christianity. Christianity and Judaism both have a much larger following and a richer history in the United States (Hinduism barely set foot in the country 20 years ago). As such, I would be for keeping them in, unless the article grows to be too large; however, I believe the Christianity section should be expanded to include Protestantism and its forms, Catholicism, and Mormonism (and perhaps Jehovah's Witness). Thoughts? The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mentioned this above. Perhaps some material on Christianity could be salvaged from before Esimal started editing it. At any rate, the section should definitely be expanded in proportion to the number of Christians and the effect of Chrisitianity on American life. In other words, if the section was fully informative, it would just wind up being longer, considering how much more there is to cover.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

NONE of these sections should be long, given that each has a separate article. I am not sure we need ANY of these sections - as long as the specific articles are pointed to --JimWae (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Though a good summary is important. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Evil Spartan is incorrect about the history of Hinduism in the United states, which has a history of about 120-130 years (from Swami Vivekananda). However, Christianity has obviously had a bigger impact, along with Judaism and Islam, and the article should reflect that. Atheism in the US is also something that may be up for research. There also needs to be a small section on Sikhism, considering Sikhs form a large percentage of the populace, a little less than Buddhists and Hindus. Baka man  18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on religion of Native Americans
Currently there is nothing on religion of Native Americans, pre or post white colonisation or current. The major article associated with this topic is Native American mythology. The History of religion in the United States also does not address the question. Paul foord (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is addressed two sections above. We are thinking about coming up with a "minority religion" section which has religions under 0.5%. In fact, we're thinking the current sections are already too long. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not just a question of 'minority religions'. As the original inhabitants I would have expected some mention in the intro, some (short summary) discussion of the nature of their beliefs and practices and the current situation or at least links to articles that do this. Not saying it is easy. Some discussion of the current situation is found at Native_American_%28U.S.%29. Paul foord (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Paul foord that the Native religions aren't really in the same situation as 'minority religions' are. Minority Religions speaks to the current state of things, and the current proportions, where the native beliefs, pre-colonization can be considered either monolithically dominant, if seen as a collective unit, or as almost as diverse as the tribes themselves, with spiritual beliefs possibly varying along indian tribal grouping lines (I.e. - all Lakota tribes may have believed similarly, but quite different than Cherokee related tribes, which in turn vary from the Huron, from the Algonquin, and on and on.) Either way, I think that considering the tribes in chronological fashion, not current demographics, makes a reasonable sense, if only to acknowledge, in the lead probably, that The native tribes had a rich and diverse set of theologies, or mythologies, precolonization, though many native americans now follow a christian religion of some sort. ThuranX (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the article is about religion in the United States, not North America. It is also about the present, not the distant past. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article introduces Religion in the United States, past and present, detail would be covered in sub-articles, there is already the "History of religion in the United States" article. Also there are/were Native American groups of the United States, they would be the focus. Paul foord (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul foord here. If this entry is to include the history of religion as practiced by non-native peoples who settled this geographic region and later contributed to the formation of the nation state then the history of religion as practiced by the native peoples who were already here when the non-natives arrived, co-existed with them prior to the founding of the nation, and still exist within the United States today should certainly be covered as well.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)