Talk:Religion in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Eastern / Oriental / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Calvinism / Baptist / Quakers / Methodism / Latter Day Saints / Adventist / Witnesses / Charismatic (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Methodism work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Religion in the United States, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Catholic, Protestant, or Christian[edit]

There appears to be a mistake in the first paragraph of this article. It says that 25% are Catholic and 51% are Christian. This wording implies that Catholics are not Christians. I believe the correct phrasing should be 25% Catholic and 51% protestants. JoAnnSmotherman (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC) JoAnn Smotherman

It comes from someone trying too slavishly to copy the ARIS wording about the "30 groupings" of non-Catholic Christians. Others might not group the denominations/etc. the same way, so it's sufficient to simply identify the Catholics as the largest subgroup, seeing as how nobody else is even close. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading quote...[edit]

I find that this reference is a bit misleading on the article page.

Despite a high level of religious adherence, only 9% of Americans in a 2008 poll said religion was the most important thing in their life, compared with 45% who said family was paramount in their life and 17% who said money and career was paramount.

I went to the original source and noticed that the original source really expressed that religion was the most important thing in people's lives in comparison to other aspects of life, like career, money, or family. The word "despite that" in the quotation makes it sound like prioritizing other things before religion would make a person more secular and less religious. I don't see the connection there at all. A person may value career and money, because a person needs to feed himself/herself. A person may value family, because the family functions like a support group. Finally, a person may value the importance of religion in his/her life but not to the point that he/she will give up his/her other values - like family, money, or career. For instance, sometimes religious groups may offer special ceremonies at certain moments in one's lifetime (baptisms, child dedications, confirmations, bar/bat mitzvahs, weddings, funerals, exorcisms, prayers, healing rituals, etc.), and sometimes people like to use the church as a social outlet. Honestly, I think a person is still religious if he/she still identifies with a religious tradition and upholds values, ethics, beliefs, and practices of that tradition and supports the religious community. I think the initial dependent clause is misleading the point of the survey. Sneazy (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The adjective "only" is a giveaway. It is 9%. It is not "only" or "an incredible" or any other adjective. "Only" is out of place and WP:POV. Let the reader decide if this is bad or good or shocking or boring. We should not be trying to "lead" the reader with casually added adjectives even if copied from an otherwise WP:RS. We're not the media. We are an encyclopedia. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems more source is required for this article, considering this is about religion in the United States so segmentation and citations must reflect levels of adherence from devout to disillusioned as with Orthodoxy to reformed. Attitude is a data segmentation which does not represent a WP:POV. Plenty of people go to traditional religious functions and perform religious ritual only out of deference to others. Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing Segment of Excommunication Unreported among Catholic and Orthodox faiths[edit]

72.80.126.76 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)The article does not mention non-adherence data which by de facto prescribed by the doctrine of faith excludes claims of “belonging to the faith”. As with the decision with regards to Catholic doctrine there cannot actually be a Divorced Catholic. The very act of divorce is unresolvable and un-atonable which provides no act of attrition to resolve excommunication, an act of contrition cannot meet the requirement to resolve the excommunication . Therefore all divorced Catholics claiming to be actual Catholics by “self-dispensation” must be considered and included as protestant “Disillusioned Catholics Protestant-not otherwise specified”.

I would correct this reporting error if I had available citations to reference I believe the number of Catholics whom are divorced is 28%.

Required acts of attrition are as follows:

Atonement by remarriage of original spouse

Atonement after spouse dies

Atonement at point of death (last rites)

Please note: an "act of Attrition" (diminishing in value or correcting the natural state of sin); is not to be confused with an "act of contrition" (which is making atonement for an already completed sin, to demonstrate remorse)


Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This information is not correct. A divorced Catholic is not excommunicated. If a Catholic remarries without an annulment they are not to receive the sacraments but they are not excommunicated.Marauder40 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for debate or argument, "not receiving sacrament" is excommunication; some may not understand the absolute definition of excommunication; "out of communication with Christ, through the holy roman church", or perhaps some might have a personal interpretation or difficulty accepting the fact that a divorced cannot get absolution from the confessional for any other minor sin, or perhaps some do not understand the term "de facto" which is not a formal notification from the church, the church will not throw a divorced catholic out or not talk to an excommunicated Catholic as would be with a Excommunicated Jehovah's witness. This is only a change in PR which tries to align itself with the modern world, no doctrine has been changed and only reflects an attitude change to not openly discuss doctrine.72.80.126.76 (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Again a divorced Catholic is not excommunicated. One that doesn't remarry is able to receive all the sacraments (except marriage) without problem. One that marries without an annulment is not to receive the sacraments but is still part of the Church. They can still attend Mass and any other public events. They are just not supposed to receive communion. If they go to confession and vow to live together as brother/sister they can receive the sacraments. Right now everything you have is WP:OR and without a valid WP:RS does not warrant being added to the article. There is no such thing a "de facto" excommunication in the Catholic church.Marauder40 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum for debate or argument, everything I have mentioned is not WP:OR, having a better understanding of the meaning of words does not have to be cited, making a semantic argument to a needed data segmentation is not a "neutral point of view"; obscuring the meaning of excommunication does not make it required to include a WP:RS Terms do not require citation necessarily; due to the reader’s lack of vocabulary. Canon Law or ecclesiastical law governing the Catholic Church, in itself and as you stated of what is denied a divorced catholic is citation enough. You are simple observing the nature of the modern Catholic Church for not fully enforcing its doctrine.

To make this clearer to you’ by de jure “prescribed by canon law” is not being strongly enforced for the de facto status of a divorced catholic. It is unlikely a divorced catholic will live as brother/sister so you are using a unique and strange circumstance to further an argument of semantics. When a divorced Catholic goes to mass, they are in a state of “de facto” excommunication receiving the blessing of the “unrepentant” which is the church’s privilege of “proselytization” or the non-faithful or unrepentant.

If you wish to contribute to this article’s discussion, please simply ask for citation or provide a citation to the exact meaning of excommunicated as prescribed by doctrine that is established by canon law, and not give personal opinions as to what you feel is practiced in a church which demonstrates "personal bias". Unfortunately, everything you challenge is from WP:OR, (personal opinion of practice) ignoring the significance of not receiving communion and having acts of contrition unavailable to a divorced catholic.

This obvious confusion by parishioners and how they would interoperate “practice” from “doctrine”, where practice seems to be in contradiction with canon law is a common mistake.

The request for the inclusion of “Disillusioned Catholic Protestant-not otherwise specified” is self-evident; because a disillusionment of marriage is automatically also, a disillusionment of the Catholic Church; the act is inseverable. Please do not respond further to this subject, which talk makes request for data to be included for a more accurate segmentation. Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please either suggest a specific change to the article or get off the Soapbox.Marauder40 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Territories[edit]

I don't seem to find much information on territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc. Is there a reason? Isaac Fermin 01:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supyloco (talkcontribs)

WOW REALLY?[edit]

You guys seem to think its ok to put the highest church states in red like that's a bad thing and the opposite green, looks like atheist Wikipedia seems to be biased, and that's not fair to the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.167.228 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming the editors were looking for a range of colors that would contrast, where significant, and not contrast where similar. What would you suggest? Student7 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
(I'm not the original poster, but someone who agrees that the color scheme may set people off, for the connotation reasons that the poster above noted. If the original poster disagrees with my suggestion, I welcome him to say so.) Varying intensities of the same color might work well, especially if it were a connotation-neutral color like brown or blue--or even something in greyscale. There are enough different shades--and different-enough shades--of many different colors. I think this would allow the map to show the distribution of American religion clearly and properly without evoking the "Alert! Alert! Danger! Danger! Religion!" meaning that the first poster seemed to take from the color scheme as it stands. (That said, I should note that I highly, highly, highly doubt that "Alert! Alert! Danger! Danger! Religion!" was what the person who put the map up was trying to convey. But the first response does show that it's something that the color scheme can inadvertently communicate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.111.22 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I have never seen a map that used red as a warning code. That's a traffic light code. In American TV usage red stands for Republican state (vs Democrats = blue), and indeed the map looks like an election map. In British usage red = world map color scheme for British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It started as a traffic code, yes, but you do have to admit that it's taken on other cultural meanings, at least in the United States. Think about, for instance, those stupid "terror alert levels" that DHS used to put out. Red was for "severe" alerts, orange for "high" alerts, etc., etc., until you got to green for "low" alerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.24.84 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
(Tried to put this in, but somehow it didn't save). And, as for maps using red as a warning code, weather maps kind of do that. If you see a blob of red moving toward you on the radar, you know you're going to be hit by a fairly large storm. (Though, that said, considering that radar maps use the colors to indicate the intensity of the weather--red and orange where there is "more weather happening," green where there is less--that analogy is more of an argument to keep the map the way it is now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.24.84 (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The green-to-red color scale is connotationally problematic; also it's not kind to red-green colorblindness. I also would suggest a change to a color intensity scale. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)