Talk:Religion in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WarrenforPrez. Peer reviewers: Butler n94, Ibreger, Reedkross.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

2017 Public Religion Research Institute survey

The latest survey about religion in the US was published in September 2017: Public Religion Research Institute's America’s Changing Religious Identity. The article should be updated according to the results, which include religion by age group, by race, by year, by region, and other interesting data. Also, most of the old data that the article currently contains should be eliminated.

According to PRRI-ACRI 2017, the religious population of the United States in 2017 is divided as follows:

• 69% Christians
• 2% Jews
• 1% Muslims
• 1% Buddhists
• 1% Hindu
• 1% other
• 24% unaffiliated
• 1% do not know

--31.27.178.163 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The article should be rewritten entirely

Could some registered user tag the article with this? The article at the current state is a hotchpotch of amassed old data, unsourced content, unreliable sources and bare urls. It needs a thorough cleanup.--31.27.178.163 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

All Americans are equal in the eyes of the law, put all groups in order of populational magnitude

• you can make an exception for the undeclared
• only if two groups have exactly the same value, put the most historically important first, otherwise we should respect the most Americans we can, thus we maintain the populational magnitude (or popular magnitude of beliefs)
• Wikipedia has a mistake. Religion is a hyponym of Metaphysics. The academic meaning of metaphysics is "fundamental worldview", not necessarily antiscientism (religion, magic, mythoplacy [mythoplacy [creation of fables] < μύθος/múthos/myth + πλάθω/plátho/mold with hands]). We should rename all Religions in (name of a country) as Metaphysical beliefs in (name of a country). If we know that they're religious beforehand, why do we have to ask them? If we genuinely ask someone about any possible opinion, we ask a hypernymic question!!!

The Americans vexillized the heavens (The Star-Spangled Banner / The US Flag).
The deivexillous (India, UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Serbia etc.) nations vexillated misconceptions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8400:A00:20F2:597E:3E92:FDDC (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Territories table

I added a table with data from the U.S. territories as well as mentioning American Samoa as having the highest rate of religious affiliation in the country. I would prefer it if this were not reverted, with the reason being that territories belong to the United States just as the states and DC do.

In addition, there is no article specifically about religion in U.S. territories, and even if such an article were to be created, it would probably be redirected to this article anyway. LumaP15 (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't "Rastafarian" considered a slur by the Rastafari faith?

From our own honorable Wiki: However, "Rastafarianism" is considered offensive by most Rastafari, who, being critical of "isms" or "ians" (which they see as a typical part of "Babylon" culture), dislike being labelled as an "ism" or "ian" themselves.

If it's controversial, we should change it to "Rastafari". Especially since that's what the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari calls it. 140.211.195.172 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I would also consider writing "Rastas" or "Rastafari practitioners" rather than "Rastafarians" because Rastafari practitioners avoid the "ism" ending. </ref> Lydiaham (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

2017 Gallup update

https://news.gallup.com/poll/224642/2017-update-americans-religion.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=2017%2520Update%2520on%2520Americans%2520and%2520Religion

Unaffiliated is a problematic term

• hyponym: religion in the United States

  or

• hypernym: metaphysical worldviews in the United States

Metaphysics doesn't necessarily mean paranormal, supernatural or theistic.

1. Religion is not the hypernym. It's not the only possible option. Titles must be wide and not pushing towards what the statistician prefers.
2. Using the term "unaffiliated" produces a huge group of people, without common purpose and goals usually neither consciousness towards the term. Separate the atheists, the religiously indifferent and the agnostics.
3. using the term "unaffiliated (towards religion)", is biased because so many non religious people, are subjected to (missing or negative) religious ideological categorization (negation [selected term by the statistician - neutral ways to express the same thing are possible] over something, it's still about that something, biased statistical pushing towards religion over other metaphysical wordviews) - not all possible ideological hypercategories are religious - their number is significant, so not respecting a huge chunk of the population is statistically biased
4. pure laziness - just do what our predecessor statisticians did - Laziness is amathematical and handwaving.

The pie's components aren't written in order of population

1. religion is a hyponym of metaphysical worldviews

   non-religious metaphysical worldviews do exist, you cannot push religion as the ultimate hypernym simply because you like it

2. you don't respect the American non-theists, you don't put them in order according to their number

   you claim that "religion is the ultimate hypernym of any metaphysical worldview including atheism"

   that is wrong; colloquially some Christians claim that atheism is a religion, because they don't respect religion and give a wide definition. Distorting the definition of a noun doesn't cancel out the semantics people communicate. Academically atheism is a metaphysical worldview (metaphysics is a generic term, not all metaphysical theories are necessarily supernatural)

   You claim: "We shouldn't respect the American non-theists, because we have to push "religion" as the ultimate hypernym of any "metaphysical worldview", thus we mention them last

If you don't want to respect some Americans, as a true patriot you have to. (I said patriot and not anarchist because the patriots are usually strict about the components of the US. The most important components of our Nation is our people. All should be respected. If they are no criminals, they deserve all the rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.215.21 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

This article makes two references to "Mormons". Recently, a style guide was released by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, emphasizing that the Church prefers the word "Mormons" not be used. The style guide says the following:

"When referring to Church members, the terms 'members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' or 'Latter-day Saints' are preferred. We ask that the term 'Mormons' not be used."

I would request that any references to "Mormons" in this page be changed to "Latter-day Saints". If you feel it is absolutely necessary, something could be added afterwards in parentheses like, "(sometimes referred to as 'Mormons')". Porter7678 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

the press release is based on theology, not on the style sheets widely used by media and reference works around the world. It tells us the theology: The full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838. I would suggest that few people besides its faithful members believe this. But this encyclopedia is for everyone regardless of their theology. Wiki readers might well take umbrage at the part of this guideline that states When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. Google Scholar tabulates usage in scholarly books and journals and lists 241,000 citations at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&q=mormon&btnG= while "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" gets only 28,500 cites. Rjensen (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that people might be more amenable to the request if the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" hadn't a few years ago embraced the term Mormons (e.g., advertising "Meet the Mormons"). On another note, how many of the numbers for Mormons in this article refer not only to those formally affiliated to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" but also those belonging to various splinter groups? --Erp (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Porter7678: Talk:Mormons might be a good place to make your case, or to make a case for specific terms to be used in specific situations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Hello. I would like to request an addition to religions founded inside of the united states. I would like to ask to have Pastafarianism (FSMism) to the list. It is a worldwide religion embraced by millions if not thousands. It was founded (well, the church was founded) in Oregon in 2005 by a man named Bobby Henderson. Huycks (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Roadguy2 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

Change the line stating the Barna Data should contain an added ending although new research suggests that research from Barna is not as reliable as more established and unbiased sociological data researchers. Other data suggests that while many liberal protestant denominations are decreasing, more conservative evangelical non-denominational churches are holding steady or experiencing explosive growth spurts. (The Myth of the Dying Church, Glenn Stanton-Focus on the Family 2019) Rlawrence777 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

New Pew Polling

Lead needs to be updated https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/ Other sections look stale as well with decade old polling graphics. 2600:1700:1111:5940:29CA:9B13:278A:CFDF (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This source strongly changes the pie chart and the body of the article. This needs immediate attention. 47.233.52.57 (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Please change: "Islam is the third largest religion in number in the United States, after Christianity and Judaism," to "Islam is the fourth largest religion in number in the United States, after Christianity, Judaism, with Budddhism and Hinduism tied at 3rd,"

Explanation of issue: The article incorrectly states Islam is 3rd most populous religion and the articles has sources disproving that statement.

References supporting change: References already in the article.47.233.52.57 (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now. First, that would be fifth (and the wording would have to be tweaked for awkwardness). And second, which sources? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's reference 21 in the article. Cox, Daniel; Jones, Ribert P. (June 9, 2017). America's Changing Religious Identity. 2016 American Values Atlas. Public Religion Research Institute.

After reviewing that source; it has Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist tied at 1%. The newer source posted just above my talk page comment agrees with this 1% tie as of early 2019. [1].

So, the change would need to be:

"Islam is tied at 1% with Islam and Hinduism as the third largest religions in number in the United States, after Christianity and Judaism,"

and the Pew source "In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace An update on America's changing religious landscape" (OCTOBER 17, 2019) added as a corroborating source.

Please review that source as Christianity decline is sharper than (I) expected in just 5 years. The article will need a new pie chart. 47.233.52.57 (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Pew Religious Landscape (2014) has Islam at .9% and Hinduism and Buddhism at .7% each (rounding leads to 1% for each. I note the Pew 2019 survey is probably smaller numbers than the 2014 survey so rounds to the nearest percent. Note when dealing with rounding at 1% one of the religions could be considerably larger than the other two and still round to 1%. Note 2014 in your source has 1% for each while the RLS survey has the .9/.7/.7 --Erp (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

So we are waiting on the next RLS in 2 years to precisely determine Hindu/Budhist/Islam rankings. But the non-Christian(other) has definitively moved from 2 to 3 % and the Christian demographics have moved so far as to force a new lead pie chart. Also, in that chart it shows other non-Abrahimic religions (including Hinduism and Buddism) as 2.5% but it's 3% excluding Hinduism and Buddhism. The green area of the pie chart has increased to ~5% 47.233.52.57 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

At the moment we have insufficient data. The last large scale data set (the Pew RLS) had Islam then Buddhism and Hinduism tied. None of the more recent data (given rounding) contradicts this. All three religions have a lot of young people so I would expect them to grow relative to Christianity but unclear relative to each other. I did rephrase a bit. Personally I would drop a lot of the charts in the article (people tend to go crazy with them, admittedly I just redid the Gallup trends chart) --Erp (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As shown above, the sources given are not sufficient to clearly differentiate rankings. When filing or fulfilling edit requests, we are asked to ...please consider the following requirements (SUNS—Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible). The issue of rankings needs more clarity than an edit request is intended to contain and this is better-served by a larger discussion here on this talk page. If that does not reach a conclusion, then you may want to look into the requests for Comment process, which invites a larger cross-section of editors to offer their opinions. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Re "Anglican and Puritan"

"Anglican and Puritan" is misleading because it is redundant - Puritans WERE Anglicans.

There were (still are) two basic types of English Calvinist - the Puritan and the Separatist. Puritans remained in the Church of England, thus, remained Anglicans. Separatists left the Church of England.

Puritans were Anglicans who wished to purify the Church of England of allegedly "Roman Catholic" influences, to emphasise Calvinist theological traditions.

Most of the Separatists established churches that followed a congregational model of adminsitration and, thus, came to be called Congregationalists.

Other Separatists became English Baptists and other groups identified collectively as "Protestant Dissenters" or "Non-Comformists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:75F4:16D8:7FD0:946A (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Puritans" were a breakaway sect and "Anglican" was the established main body. Historians differentiate the two. See See Ronald J. Vander Molen, "Anglican against puritan: Ideological origins during the Marian Exile." Church History 42.1 (1973): 45-57. In New England there were major battles between the two groups. Rjensen (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

2017 Gallup

Religion in the United States of America (Gallup 2017)

Religion
	Percentage
Christianity	73%
–Protestantism	48.5%
–Catholicism	22.7%
–Mormonism	1.8%
Judaism	2.1%
Islam	0.8%
Other non-Christian religion	2.9%
No religious identity	21.3%

this survey in article was carried out by gallup in 2016, in 2017 gallup launched a new updated survey and this was the result, I think this article should be rewritten to fit this update made by gallup(The Sr Guy (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC))

References

Hypernymically erroneous categorization

Hypernymically erroneous categorization which is based on Richard Dawkins's view: merge all the nontheists and fragment all the theists (the presentation on the main chart is biased and polemic; we care about fighting theism, not about each individual worldview; also the page title is wrong, all opinions are theistic or theistic with a negation [nontheistic] - some correct unbiased titles could be: metaphysical worldviews or beliefs in America; belief is also wrong, because it's a wider hypernym which includes other values; metaphysics here used academically: hypernymously to ontology

hypernym 1: theisms

1. Christian
2. Muslim
3. so-and-so
4. so-and-so
5. so-and-so

hypernym 2: nontheisms

6. atheism (belief god doesn't exist)
7. agnosticism (belief we cannot prove the state of existence of god)
8. metaphysical indifference (here metaphysics doesn't mean supernaturalism, but range of philosophical questions wider than ontology)

hypernym 3: others

9. I don't want to say
10. Other (some people don't like our hypernyms, we don't have time to educate them or force them into a category; we usually allow some vague "other" which here is different that the "religious other/other religion" which has to be mentioned in a different category)

But the presentation shouldn't be based on hypernymic order. All humans are of equal value, thus we should list them based on population size. If two numbers are exactly the same, only then we write first the most traditional belief for that particular country (for example Christianity, Atheism, Islam is the order of older traditions in the US; we never use that order, except is some population sizes are exactly the same; if one group has one more adherent [a single person], we write that cohort first.

The recent Pew Research Center (2019) poll should be included as initial pie chart

The editor The Sr Guy deleted the edit of Elperrofeliz345678 on 12:05, 21 July 2020‎ with his claim: "please don't change without consensus". I reverted the edit by The Sr Guy supporting Elperrofeliz345678 edit. Now he claims it was me who have not reached consensus, as you can see The Sr Guy is absolutely distorting the situation and doing disruptive editing. On 22:08, 27 July 2020 I explained why I reverted The Sr Guy's abusive behaviour with these words: "Undid revision 969851926 by The Sr Guy (talk) It´s you who changed the edition of Elperrofeliz345678. The consensus was already reached previous to your edition. It´s you who have to stop".

Anyway, the other reason, to let the results of the study: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/ , to be uploaded in the article is that it's the most recent and serious poll, confirming the tendency or trend of previous polls by the same Pew Research Center, and other polls, for USA. And as I said above, the behaviour of constantly reverting new editions by other editors which incorporate new and valuable data is to do disruptive editing: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors". --Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Present in cohort size order

1. Present in order of population size.
2. For equal percentages present first the traditional belief (Christianity is more traditional than atheism and atheism more traditional than Islam in the US).
3. Specific "others" have more rights than "vague others". If someone is specifically a "religious other" or a "nontheistic other who didn't like our system of classification"; these "specific others" have more rights in the order of presentation than the "vague others for which we know nothing about". On the other hand if we as statisticians were the cause of forcing many people to select "otherness" due to our biased classification; we should admit it, and then the vague others have the same rights with the specific identity others (non generic others, but others with specific tendencies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4101:19B2:85B7:627A:123B:B4D8 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Question on Protestant Branches

There should be a section on the different protestant branches and the adherents as a percent of the protestant population somewhere in the article. I know there isn't new data for the overall religious/irreligious chart that is used near the top of the page, but the Protestantism page has a good breakdown according to affiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.7.209 (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous title; religion is not the highest-order hypernym of metaphysical worldview

If agnosticism and atheism/naturalism are religions, then change their articles.

Erroneous term; atheism is a polemic term against theism; surveys are biased when they support warring. Naturalism is a better term (even if you claim that it's not entirely identical, it's close enough, and no human cohort even matches exactly a generic label; thus pick them wisely. Why don't you label religions antinaturalism or more gently anaturalism?

You might mistakenly claim that naturalists use the term atheism. That's not necessarily the case, because most of them don't belong to a union, and many naturalist unions use other terms. Usually the lay-person uses the popular term that conveys the meaning to be expressed. If you promote a polemic term, you are the one to blame, not the lay-person who usually doesn't write and contribute to the selection of philosophical and statistical labels.

great article; better graphics svp

can we have a simple summary table without all the sects ? also, IMO, thepie charts don't work - to many colors and to many variable but a simple table, say Christian jewhish moslem etc for the top 10 would be really nice thanks

also, please please less color coding !! if you have to use all these colors, a really bad idea, at least make sure they are consistent thru the entire article !! thanks

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

In section 9.1, under Jehovah’s Witnesses, the statement “They claim about 7.69 million active members worldwide” is incorrect. It should state “ They claim about 8.69 million active members worldwide.”

See reference: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/worldwide/

libreechange (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC) libreechange (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a reliable third party source. Melmann 19:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

The formal name of "Mormonism" is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

References to "Mormonism" or "Mormon religion" are outdated.

See:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide#:~:text=The%20official%20name%20of%20the,of%20Latter%2Dday%20Saints.%22

for more information. THOWHIT333 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor THOWHIT333:  Not done: from the Wikipedia article titled "Mormonism":

[...] scholars and theologians within the Latter Day Saint movement, including (Joseph) Smith, have often used "Mormonism" to describe the unique teachings and doctrines of the movement.

The source you give is called a "primary source", and the source from the "Mormonism" article is a "secondary source", which is more acceptable in this encyclopedia. Thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Dharmic or Indian religions?

An issue has arisen about whether a section heading should be Dharmic Religions or Indian Religions or something else. The main article on those religions is Indian Religions though there has been discussion on the Talk page about whether it should be Dharmic religions. On the other hand "Indian" in the US can refer to either "Native Americans" or to people from India so "Indian Religions" especially in an article about the US is ambiguous. I did do a search through some scholarly presses and "Dharmic religions" is used in many recent works (though "Indian religions" is also used and "Religions of India" and "South Asian religions"). There is a balance between using the common name and confusion. Note "Ambiguous ... names are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". --Erp (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a good compromise would be "Indian (Dharmic) religions". Indyguy (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Indic religions is also a viable option. The word Indic makes it clear it refers to India and its people. I think Dharmic religions is a bit iffy, as it is mostly used by non-academic fringe authors like David Frawley and Rajiv Malhotra, and has been criticized by academics as a form of Saffronization. Check out Indian_religions#Use_of_term_"Dharmic_religions". Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

​​​ I’m in agreement to use Indic religions. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Manabimasu edit

Manabimasu, in this edit, you did two things: removed "Roman," and that's fine. But you also removed the unrelated Pew poll which is in the lead chart, and body follows lead, so your removal of the body content is inappropriate. It was also poorly phrased, so I corrected it in my reversion, and you have now restored that poor phrasing. soibangla (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• ​The reference name is “Pew2020”. It’s already defined in {{Pie chart | thumb = right | caption = Religion in the United States (2020)<ref name="Pew2020">{{cite web |title=Measuring Religion in Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel |url=https://www.pewforum.org/2021/01/14/measuring-religion-in-pew-research-centers-american-trends-panel/ |website=Measuring Religion in Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel | Pew Research Center |publisher=Pew Research Center |access-date=9 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210208090614/https://www.pewforum.org/2021/01/14/measuring-religion-in-pew-research-centers-american-trends-panel/ |archive-date=8 February 2021 |date=14 January 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> . You can edit the reference in the pie chart. Or just move the reference definition down and leave the reference anchor in the pie chart. It’s redundant to define the same name reference twice. Manabimasu (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that addresses my concern. I have nothing more to say about this, maybe another editor will follow up with you. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

H:RTAG may clear up on references for you.Manabimasu (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Territories data

This section concerns data in the U.S. territories table.

The source for the data is from the ARDA (Association of Religion Data Archives). These are the URLs to each territory's data:

• https://thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_5_2.asp (American Samoa)
• https://thearda.com/internationalData/compare2.asp?c=97&c=97 (Guam)
• https://thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_169_2.asp (Northern Mariana Islands)
• https://thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_182_2.asp (Puerto Rico)
• https://thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_240_2.asp (U.S. Virgin Islands)

For some reason, some of the current 2015 data on these pages is different than it was in the past. American Samoa's 2015 "not religious" percentage used to be 0.9%, and now it is 0.88%. This change was probably for accuracy purposes. Some of the changes are significant: American's Samoa's non-Christian religious number used to be 11.7%, but now it is only 1.13% — 0.41% (East Asian Complex) plus 0.38% (Bahai) plus 0.34% (Buddhist) which equals 1.13%. Because of this, American Samoa's "all religions" column would be 88.5% instead of 99.1% (the non-Christian religious percentage (1.13%) plus the Christian percentage (87.37%)).

The CIA World Factbook has data which is different than the ARDA. For example, the CIA World Factbook says that American Samoa's religious percentage is 99.3% religious and 0.7% non-religious, similar to what the ARDA used to say about 2015 data (though, the CIA World Factbook's data for American Samoa is from 2010, about 11 years old). Some CIA World Factbook pages don't say what year the religious data is from (such as the U.S. Virgin Islands entry).

None of the data in any of the ARDA links above adds up to 100%. For example, for the U.S. Virgin Islands (the 5th link above), the numbers: 81.83% (Christian) plus 4.04% (Not religious) plus 0.63% (Bahai) plus 0.42% (Hindu) plus 0.32% (Jewish) plus 0.1% (Muslim) equals 87.34% — which means 12.66% is missing (100% minus 87.34% equals 12.66%). Because the URLs above do not say what these missing percentages are, they are unknown / not specified. The only link that acknowledges this unknown percentage is Guam's link.

A column indicating that there are missing percentages (percentages not accounted for) would indicate that the numbers do not add up to 100%. Puerto Rico's numbers (in the link above) are: 91.2% (Christian) plus 3.16% (Not religious) plus 0.09% (Hindu) plus 0.07% (Bahai) plus 0.07% (Jewish) plus 0.04% (New Age/Neo-Religionists) plus 0.03% (Muslim) plus 0.02% (East Asian Complex) plus 0.01% (Buddhist) — which only adds up to 94.69% — meaning that 5.31% is missing and not specified.

The table could remain as it is, but the new ARDA numbers, and a column listing the missing percentages, could be included. Also, the CIA World Factbook's data may be included, but they are more vague about their numbers than the ARDA. LumaP15 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

2010 ARDA

Religious groups

Religious group	Number in year 2010	% in year 2010
Orthodox	1,056,535	0.3%
Hindu estimate	400,000	0.4%
Source: ARDA

How can Hindu have a higher percentage while having a smaller number? 179.208.111.37 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Protestant Nation?

Who's writing this stuff? The US is not a "Christian" or "Protestant" nation; it's a secular republic and the article should reflect that reality instead of using highly misleading language that sounds as if the country's a theocracy. Guaranteed, the sources used to support this statement are either old or taken out of context. The Pew article, for example, does not call the US "a Protestant nation" but says that "Protestants no longer make up a majority of U.S. adults[2]." The way the article should frame the religious history of the US is to make it clear that the US population was, historically, majority Protestant, but isn't anymore. That the "no religions" constitute the fastest rising demographic is also significant [3].

Even the first statement in the lead stating that the US has a "Protestant majority" is false. Nearly 60% of the US population identifies as something other than Protestant Christian, and there is no single religion that the majority of Americans adhere to. Protestantism isn't even a "religion" as the statement here claims, but rather a branch of Christianity that includes denominations as far afield from each other as Anglo-Catholicism and Pentecostalism. What some sources do say is that the US has a "Christian majority", and they say that by combining the 40% of Protestants with the 20% of Catholics.

Please rewrite the lead to reflect what the sources say more accurately.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded the first sentence and asked for additional citations per your comment here. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

religious education

what is the name of the big's religious 72.27.76.36 (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

Change Presbyterian in the protestant denominations section to Presbyterian JonasJoestar (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness, Mormons are not Christians

Someone please edit this document.

Jehovah Witnesses do not believe Jesus is the son of God. They do not believe he is devine and therefore cannot satisfy basic tenants of any denomination of Christianity. Actually, they believe you are blasphemous in even saying that. How can someone who thinks the basics of Christianity to be evil, be a Christian? That makes no sense. Muslims believe Jesus existed, only as a prophet. No one considers Islam a form of Christianity, why would you then consider JW, which has the exact same belief?

Mormons, also are not Christians. They believe that humans have the potential to become a God, just as they believe our current God used to be a human at some time in His past. They believe in Jesus as a prophet; however, they are works based. Mormans still live judged by the Mosaic law. They are basically Judaism, with a new age cult flare.

Many cults have proceeded from the Christian religion. All have a similarity. They all steal the divinity and saving grace from Jesus Christ. This is by no accident. A Jesus that has no saving power does not fulfill the prophecy of the old commandment and this is not Christianity.

The bible dictates what a Christian is. You must believe that God has come to earth as he promised in the old testament. He was nailed to a cross, died and rose again to life, defeating sin. Christians must believe that faith in Christ saves, not adherence to the Mosaic law.

There are many theological differences between Christian groups like Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist to name a few, but the basics must remain. Even if you want to go as far as saying Modern Catholics are Christian (which they aren't, because they do not meet the faith only and Christ only test), Mormans and JW definitely, in no way are close to being Christian. Actually, a Christian would be rejected at one of these institutions, just as much as they would be in an Islam or Judaism temple.

If we are going to be classifying people as religious groups, there must be a basis for what those classifications are. What better for Christianity than scripture itself? You classify race based off skin color, nationality based off of nation, what then religion but based off their Gods word, doctrines, or dogmas?

Mormons and JW would argue that their heretical books are also scripture. One could argue this, but they are not scripture of Christ the King and saviour of the world. They are scripture, but not Christian scripture. We are currently debating Christianity as a definition. There is no argument that these books not only go against what the disciples wrote about in the gospels but also against the red text of Jesus himself. Mormons argue that their prophet had a vision of God who gave them new doctrines, so do muslims. They are scriptures analogous to the Qur'an. They are amendments after the fact that steal Christ's saving grace.

If you have a tortilla with meat in it, you have a taco. If you cover it in sauce and bake it, you now have something totally different, an enchilada. Even more greater is the difference here. Sure they share some of the same ingredients, like the old and new testament, but the changes they made, created something completely new. In this analogy, Mexican food is the religion demographic. Tortillas, and meat are the old and new testament.

Simply adding a man name Jesus to your backstory does not mean your religion is a denomination of Christianity.

Would a Spanish romance novel with a lead character named Jesus be considered Christian scripture just because it has a man named Jesus in it? No! That is obsurd! What makes Jesus special are the characteristics promised to us in the old testament and conveyed in the new. Any other Jesus is not the Jesus in Christianity.

Religions do not follow the post modern way of thinking. Religion is not subject to what ever you want it to be based on your own feelings or traditions. Religion is dictated by God and is unwavering. True religion does not move or flex to someone else's feelings.

Do we doubt what Hinduism is? No debate. Hinduism is listed with one option on this page. Likewise, so is Buddhism. Islam the same. If an atheist started believing in God, could he remain "atheist"? 76.142.113.221 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)