![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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.
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
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
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.
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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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.
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)
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)
I removed this from the article:
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)
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?
Group | 1990 x1000 |
2001 x1000 |
Numerical %Change |
1990 unadjusted % |
2001 unadjusted % |
unadjusted %-% |
1990 adjusted % |
2001 adjusted % |
adjusted %-% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adult population, total \1 | 175,440 | 207,980 | 18.55 | ||||||
Adult population, RESPONDED | 171,409 | 196,734 | 14.77 | ||||||
Total Christian | 151,496 | 159,506 | 5.29 | 86.35 | 76.69 | -9.66 | 88.38 | 81.08 | -7.31 |
Catholic | 46,004 | 50,873 | 10.58 | 26.22 | 24.46 | -1.76 | 26.84 | 25.86 | -0.98 |
non-Catholic Christian |
105,492 | 108,633 | 2.98 | 60.13 | 52.23 | -7.90 | 61.54 | 55.22 | -6.33 |
Baptist | 33,964 | 33,830 | -0.39 | 19.36 | 16.27 | -3.09 | 19.81 | 17.20 | -2.62 |
Protestant no denomination supplied |
17,214 | 4,647 | -73.00 | 9.81 | 2.23 | -7.58 | 10.04 | 2.36 | -7.68 |
Methodist/Wesleyan | 14,174 | 14,150 | -0.17 | 8.08 | 6.80 | -1.28 | 8.27 | 7.19 | -1.08 |
Lutheran | 9,110 | 9,580 | 5.16 | 5.19 | 4.61 | -0.59 | 5.31 | 4.87 | -0.45 |
Christian no denomination supplied |
8,073 | 14,150 | 75.28 | 4.60 | 6.80 | 2.20 | 4.71 | 7.19 | 2.48 |
Presbyterian | 4,985 | 5,596 | 12.26 | 2.84 | 2.69 | -0.15 | 2.91 | 2.84 | -0.06 |
Pentecostal/Charismatic | 3,191 | 4,407 | 38.11 | 1.82 | 2.12 | 0.30 | 1.86 | 2.24 | 0.38 |
Episcopalian/Anglican | 3,042 | 3,451 | 13.45 | 1.73 | 1.66 | -0.07 | 1.77 | 1.75 | -0.02 |
Mormon Latter-Day Saints |
2,487 | 2,787 | 12.06 | 1.42 | 1.34 | -0.08 | 1.45 | 1.42 | -0.03 |
Churches of Christ | 1,769 | 2,593 | 46.58 | 1.01 | 1.25 | 0.24 | 1.03 | 1.32 | 0.29 |
Jehovah's Witness | 1,381 | 1,331 | -3.62 | 0.79 | 0.64 | -0.15 | 0.81 | 0.68 | -0.13 |
Seventh-Day Adventist | 668 | 724 | 8.38 | 0.38 | 0.35 | -0.03 | 0.39 | 0.37 | -0.02 |
Assemblies of God | 660 | 1,106 | 67.58 | 0.38 | 0.53 | 0.16 | 0.39 | 0.56 | 0.18 |
Holiness/Holy | 610 | 569 | -6.72 | 0.35 | 0.27 | -0.07 | 0.36 | 0.29 | -0.07 |
Congregational/United Church of Christ | 599 | 1,378 | 130.05 | 0.34 | 0.66 | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.70 | 0.35 |
Church of the Nazarene | 549 | 544 | -0.91 | 0.31 | 0.26 | -0.05 | 0.32 | 0.28 | -0.04 |
Church of God | 531 | 944 | 77.78 | 0.30 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.48 | 0.17 |
Orthodox (Eastern) | 502 | 645 | 28.49 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.03 |
Evangelical \2 | 242 | 1,032 | 326.45 | 0.14 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.14 | 0.52 | 0.38 |
Mennonite | 235 | 346 | 47.23 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.04 |
Christian Science | 214 | 194 | -9.35 | 0.12 | 0.09 | -0.03 | 0.12 | 0.10 | -0.03 |
Church of the Brethren | 206 | 358 | 73.79 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.06 |
Born Again \2 | 204 | 56 | -72.55 | 0.12 | 0.03 | -0.09 | 0.12 | 0.03 | -0.09 |
Nondenominational \2(also included as Xn, despite...) | 195 | 2,489 | 1,176.41 | 0.11 | 1.20 | 1.09 | 0.11 | 1.27 | 1.15 |
Disciples of Christ | 144 | 492 | 241.67 | 0.08 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.25 | 0.17 |
Reformed/Dutch Reform | 161 | 289 | 79.50 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.05 |
Apostolic/New Apostolic | 117 | 254 | 117.09 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.06 |
Quaker | 67 | 217 | 223.88 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.07 |
Full Gospel | 51 | 168 | 229.41 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.06 |
Christian Reform | 40 | 79 | 97.50 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Foursquare Gospel | 28 | 70 | 150.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Fundamentalist | 27 | 61 | 125.93 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
Salvation Army | 27 | 25 | -7.41 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Independent Christian Church | 25 | 71 | 184.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Total non Xn religions | 5,853 | 7,740 | 32.24 | 3.34 | 3.72 | 0.39 | 3.41 | 3.93 | 0.52 |
Jewish | 3,137 | 2,831 | -9.75 | 1.79 | 1.36 | -0.43 | 1.83 | 1.44 | -0.39 |
Muslim/Islamic | 527 | 1,104 | 109.49 | 0.30 | 0.53 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 0.56 | 0.25 |
Buddhist | 401 | 1,082 | 169.83 | 0.23 | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.23 | 0.55 | 0.32 |
Unitarian/Universalist | 502 | 629 | 25.30 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.02 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.03 |
Hindu | 227 | 766 | 237.44 | 0.13 | 0.37 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.39 | 0.26 |
Native American | 47 | 103 | 119.15 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.02 |
Scientologist | 45 | 55 | 22.22 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
Baha'I | 28 | 84 | 200.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
Taoist | 23 | 40 | 73.91 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
New Age | 20 | 68 | 240.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
Eckankar | 18 | 26 | 44.44 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Rastafarian | 14 | 11 | -21.43 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Sikh | 13 | 57 | 338.46 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
Wiccan | 8 | 134 | 1,575.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
Deity | 6 | 49 | 716.67 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Druid | . | 33 | . | . | 0.02 | . | . | 0.02 | . |
Santeria | . | 22 | . | . | 0.01 | . | . | 0.01 | . |
Pagan | . | 140 | . | . | 0.07 | . | . | 0.07 | . |
Spiritualist | . | 116 | . | . | 0.06 | . | . | 0.06 | . |
Ethical Culture | . | 4 | . | . | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | . |
Other unclassified non-Xn | 837 | 386 | -53.88 | 0.48 | 0.19 | -0.29 | 0.49 | 0.20 | -0.29 |
No religion specified, total | 14,331 | 29,481 | 105.71 | 8.17 | 14.17 | 6.01 | 8.36 | 14.99 | 6.62 |
Atheist | . | 902 | . | . | 0.43 | . | . | 0.46 | . |
Agnostic | 1,186 | 991 | -16.44 | 0.68 | 0.48 | -0.20 | 0.69 | 0.50 | -0.19 |
Humanist | 29 | 49 | 68.97 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
Secular | . | 53 | . | . | 0.03 | . | . | 0.03 | . |
No religion | 13,116 | 27,486 | 109.56 | 7.48 | 13.22 | 5.74 | 7.65 | 13.97 | 6.32 |
Refused to reply to question | 4,031 | 11,246 | 178.99 | 2.30 | 5.41 | 3.11 |
-- 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)
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 White T· C 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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 (subscription or UK public library membership required)), 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)
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)
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 [1] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is insane. The religioustolerance.org article is citing 1986 data. That's insanely unreliable. If you go to [2], ReligiousTolerance themselves even says "[Note: These numbers are grossly exaggerated.]" The last reliable data I could find was [3], which says 134K Wiccans in 2001. -- B ( talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
History of Religion in the US
Role of religion in slavery & Civil War
Religions founded in USA
Separation of Church & State
Rise of non-Xn religious views (including no religion)
Article should be comprehensive about religion in general & include most relevant stats in table form
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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.
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
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
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.
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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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.
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)
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)
I removed this from the article:
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)
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?
Group | 1990 x1000 |
2001 x1000 |
Numerical %Change |
1990 unadjusted % |
2001 unadjusted % |
unadjusted %-% |
1990 adjusted % |
2001 adjusted % |
adjusted %-% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adult population, total \1 | 175,440 | 207,980 | 18.55 | ||||||
Adult population, RESPONDED | 171,409 | 196,734 | 14.77 | ||||||
Total Christian | 151,496 | 159,506 | 5.29 | 86.35 | 76.69 | -9.66 | 88.38 | 81.08 | -7.31 |
Catholic | 46,004 | 50,873 | 10.58 | 26.22 | 24.46 | -1.76 | 26.84 | 25.86 | -0.98 |
non-Catholic Christian |
105,492 | 108,633 | 2.98 | 60.13 | 52.23 | -7.90 | 61.54 | 55.22 | -6.33 |
Baptist | 33,964 | 33,830 | -0.39 | 19.36 | 16.27 | -3.09 | 19.81 | 17.20 | -2.62 |
Protestant no denomination supplied |
17,214 | 4,647 | -73.00 | 9.81 | 2.23 | -7.58 | 10.04 | 2.36 | -7.68 |
Methodist/Wesleyan | 14,174 | 14,150 | -0.17 | 8.08 | 6.80 | -1.28 | 8.27 | 7.19 | -1.08 |
Lutheran | 9,110 | 9,580 | 5.16 | 5.19 | 4.61 | -0.59 | 5.31 | 4.87 | -0.45 |
Christian no denomination supplied |
8,073 | 14,150 | 75.28 | 4.60 | 6.80 | 2.20 | 4.71 | 7.19 | 2.48 |
Presbyterian | 4,985 | 5,596 | 12.26 | 2.84 | 2.69 | -0.15 | 2.91 | 2.84 | -0.06 |
Pentecostal/Charismatic | 3,191 | 4,407 | 38.11 | 1.82 | 2.12 | 0.30 | 1.86 | 2.24 | 0.38 |
Episcopalian/Anglican | 3,042 | 3,451 | 13.45 | 1.73 | 1.66 | -0.07 | 1.77 | 1.75 | -0.02 |
Mormon Latter-Day Saints |
2,487 | 2,787 | 12.06 | 1.42 | 1.34 | -0.08 | 1.45 | 1.42 | -0.03 |
Churches of Christ | 1,769 | 2,593 | 46.58 | 1.01 | 1.25 | 0.24 | 1.03 | 1.32 | 0.29 |
Jehovah's Witness | 1,381 | 1,331 | -3.62 | 0.79 | 0.64 | -0.15 | 0.81 | 0.68 | -0.13 |
Seventh-Day Adventist | 668 | 724 | 8.38 | 0.38 | 0.35 | -0.03 | 0.39 | 0.37 | -0.02 |
Assemblies of God | 660 | 1,106 | 67.58 | 0.38 | 0.53 | 0.16 | 0.39 | 0.56 | 0.18 |
Holiness/Holy | 610 | 569 | -6.72 | 0.35 | 0.27 | -0.07 | 0.36 | 0.29 | -0.07 |
Congregational/United Church of Christ | 599 | 1,378 | 130.05 | 0.34 | 0.66 | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.70 | 0.35 |
Church of the Nazarene | 549 | 544 | -0.91 | 0.31 | 0.26 | -0.05 | 0.32 | 0.28 | -0.04 |
Church of God | 531 | 944 | 77.78 | 0.30 | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.48 | 0.17 |
Orthodox (Eastern) | 502 | 645 | 28.49 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.03 |
Evangelical \2 | 242 | 1,032 | 326.45 | 0.14 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.14 | 0.52 | 0.38 |
Mennonite | 235 | 346 | 47.23 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.04 |
Christian Science | 214 | 194 | -9.35 | 0.12 | 0.09 | -0.03 | 0.12 | 0.10 | -0.03 |
Church of the Brethren | 206 | 358 | 73.79 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.06 |
Born Again \2 | 204 | 56 | -72.55 | 0.12 | 0.03 | -0.09 | 0.12 | 0.03 | -0.09 |
Nondenominational \2(also included as Xn, despite...) | 195 | 2,489 | 1,176.41 | 0.11 | 1.20 | 1.09 | 0.11 | 1.27 | 1.15 |
Disciples of Christ | 144 | 492 | 241.67 | 0.08 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.25 | 0.17 |
Reformed/Dutch Reform | 161 | 289 | 79.50 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.05 |
Apostolic/New Apostolic | 117 | 254 | 117.09 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.06 |
Quaker | 67 | 217 | 223.88 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.07 |
Full Gospel | 51 | 168 | 229.41 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.06 |
Christian Reform | 40 | 79 | 97.50 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Foursquare Gospel | 28 | 70 | 150.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Fundamentalist | 27 | 61 | 125.93 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
Salvation Army | 27 | 25 | -7.41 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Independent Christian Church | 25 | 71 | 184.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Total non Xn religions | 5,853 | 7,740 | 32.24 | 3.34 | 3.72 | 0.39 | 3.41 | 3.93 | 0.52 |
Jewish | 3,137 | 2,831 | -9.75 | 1.79 | 1.36 | -0.43 | 1.83 | 1.44 | -0.39 |
Muslim/Islamic | 527 | 1,104 | 109.49 | 0.30 | 0.53 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 0.56 | 0.25 |
Buddhist | 401 | 1,082 | 169.83 | 0.23 | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.23 | 0.55 | 0.32 |
Unitarian/Universalist | 502 | 629 | 25.30 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.02 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.03 |
Hindu | 227 | 766 | 237.44 | 0.13 | 0.37 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.39 | 0.26 |
Native American | 47 | 103 | 119.15 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.02 |
Scientologist | 45 | 55 | 22.22 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
Baha'I | 28 | 84 | 200.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
Taoist | 23 | 40 | 73.91 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
New Age | 20 | 68 | 240.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
Eckankar | 18 | 26 | 44.44 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Rastafarian | 14 | 11 | -21.43 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Sikh | 13 | 57 | 338.46 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
Wiccan | 8 | 134 | 1,575.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
Deity | 6 | 49 | 716.67 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Druid | . | 33 | . | . | 0.02 | . | . | 0.02 | . |
Santeria | . | 22 | . | . | 0.01 | . | . | 0.01 | . |
Pagan | . | 140 | . | . | 0.07 | . | . | 0.07 | . |
Spiritualist | . | 116 | . | . | 0.06 | . | . | 0.06 | . |
Ethical Culture | . | 4 | . | . | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | . |
Other unclassified non-Xn | 837 | 386 | -53.88 | 0.48 | 0.19 | -0.29 | 0.49 | 0.20 | -0.29 |
No religion specified, total | 14,331 | 29,481 | 105.71 | 8.17 | 14.17 | 6.01 | 8.36 | 14.99 | 6.62 |
Atheist | . | 902 | . | . | 0.43 | . | . | 0.46 | . |
Agnostic | 1,186 | 991 | -16.44 | 0.68 | 0.48 | -0.20 | 0.69 | 0.50 | -0.19 |
Humanist | 29 | 49 | 68.97 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
Secular | . | 53 | . | . | 0.03 | . | . | 0.03 | . |
No religion | 13,116 | 27,486 | 109.56 | 7.48 | 13.22 | 5.74 | 7.65 | 13.97 | 6.32 |
Refused to reply to question | 4,031 | 11,246 | 178.99 | 2.30 | 5.41 | 3.11 |
-- 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)
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 White T· C 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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 (subscription or UK public library membership required)), 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)
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)
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 [1] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is insane. The religioustolerance.org article is citing 1986 data. That's insanely unreliable. If you go to [2], ReligiousTolerance themselves even says "[Note: These numbers are grossly exaggerated.]" The last reliable data I could find was [3], which says 134K Wiccans in 2001. -- B ( talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
History of Religion in the US
Role of religion in slavery & Civil War
Religions founded in USA
Separation of Church & State
Rise of non-Xn religious views (including no religion)
Article should be comprehensive about religion in general & include most relevant stats in table form
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |