Jump to content

Talk:Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Title of article

I am terribly dismayed by the lack of evidence to show our president's as something other than being a Christian in the literal sense. I believe there is an overwhelming attempt at undermining our president's religious beliefs here. I propose we eliminate this article altogether. Mr. Wae seems to have an agenda here by labelling most of our president's as deists or unitarians just based on a few quotes that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs. --Gbdill 17:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all of the sections you eliminated contained references. If you have better information, find it and ciite it. You shouldn't just eliminate sections that include citations, and definitely shouldn't add text such as "this section has been removed" that makes reference to the Wikipedia editing process. --Jfruh (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I am new as a Wikipedian and can embarrass myself. Not really having tried to edit a topic yet.  Remember this as you evaluate my example of improvement. Two or three rejection I can deal with though I dislike.
In one Biblical Church the saved were called Christian. The meaning of Christian inhabits that of meaning Christianity as if it were member being in the Church within their church building. Unless other than the nature of things "Christian" has a general meaning most read and most accept as common. When referring to the occupation of the title existing along side the title President ( and here in this article many different title are used side by side which bothers me as to it's truthfulness ) as either occupied or not there is a better word to be used than Christian. When a title in a persons past life explains past and present ( and may be explains future ) circumstance a person commits to being this. Any person can commit even when that person is smaller than any title offered and has no title. A person commits to a title making a person committed to and carrying out all work associated with this title by the person accepting this title which proves the person with the title. Past present and future, the meaning is the same for as long as the title sticks when the title is kept.
I am not saying that there is no need for denoting reference to single or multiple belief, only that calling this Christian is not a correct way of having this done. "Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States" being the topic. ( "Commitments of presidents of the United States" being a better title. ) ( This is not to disgrace those who are Christian. ) In stead I am suggesting that as one choice we use the word and meaning "commitment" in place of "Christian" with it's better meaning, removing Christian as a try. "Commitment" is a larger and more enveloping meaning to what any "commit" to. ( and since Christian are protected in the United States Of America from any type of harm, mind, body, and soul, it is not only wrong to use Christian in this sense but also punishable. An example of this punishment is comparable with a member having said or done some small wrong within the large Church, catches hell outside the church. This being offensive to the person harmed is by Church decision to be refunded to the offended in the manner agreed on by both. Christian is a title only, and one people in the United States Of America take seriously. The Wikipedian who used "Christian" here has to some degree, small or large, offended the Christian. If small enough, a simple "I am sorry, I apologize" after fixing the problem,  often makes things right.
An example of the finished work will look like this: 11 | James K. Polk |commitment | Protestant | Methodist | Methodist | 1845–1849 | Never baptized until on his deathbed. Formerly more or less affiliated with Presbyterian churches. He eventually received a deathbed Methodist baptism by Methodist preacher John Berry McFerrin.[24]
I question many other title word definition such as "Protestant" "Methodist" and "Methodist" ( from the example I gave ) only will leave this for a future date when with help I can start to correct any mistake. At the moment the title "Christian" with it's use bothers me. I respect our President. Leroy 11-28-1952 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this article has deserves a promotion from the dreaded second-class "list" category -- it's essentially a real article now. I'd say call it something like "Religious beliefs of U.S. presidents", and instead of the long bulleted list, just go through the presidents on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, e.g. "Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president, believed like most presidents of his era that Alexander Hamilton was Satan incarnate, blah blah etc." Certain groups of presidents with unremarkable beliefs could be covered in single paragraphs, such as Hayes through Cleveland. The list by affiliation at the end could remain as is. Just an idea. --Kevin Myers 05:23, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Weren't the Adamses Congregationalists? -- Zoe

Many Congregationalist churches changed to Unitarian in early 1800s, influenced by Harvard --JimWae 06:13, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

The page seems to imply that Andrew Johnson and Rutherford B. Hayes (both listed as none) were atheists. What is the basis of this? Certainly that could not have been their public position. --Pharos 07:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

none does not mean atheist, it means they had no real affiliation with any denomination, no?
True but this article rather radically overestimates the number in the "none" or "deist" column. I don't think I've ever seen an article that would place it this high. I'll check the sources later maybe.--T. Anthony 11:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln

There seems to have been some controversy about Lincoln's religion. What about this as a summary?:

Abraham Lincoln – Deist tendencies, later publicly embraced Christianity

Is there any evidence of a public embrace?--JimWae 06:13, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Present Entry for Lincoln

16. Abraham Lincoln – Deist; possibly Christian

    • For much of his life, Lincoln was undoubtedly Deist (see [1], [2]). In his younger days he openly challenged orthodox religions, but as he matured he kept his Deist views more to himself, and would sometimes attend Presbyterian services with his wife. He loved to read the Bible, and even quoted from it, but he almost never made reference to Jesus, and is not known to have ever indicated a belief in the divinity of Jesus.
    • A number of pastors claimed a late conversion for Lincoln, but these are hard to substantiate. One notable claim is that of an unnamed Illinois clergyman who recalls asking Lincoln, "Mr. President, do you love Jesus?" After a long pause, Lincoln is said to have replied, "When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus." (This story is recounted in Osborn H. Oldroyd, ed., The Lincoln Memorial Album—Immortelles (New York: G.W. Carleton & Co., 1882, p. 366); and in William J. Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, The Christian (Eaton & Mains, New York, NY and Jennings & Graham, Cincinnati, OH, 1913, p. 172). See a discussion of this story in Paul F. Boller & John George, They Never Said It, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1989, p. 91).) Other pastors date a conversion following the death of his son Eddie in 1850, and also following the death of his son Willie in 1862.

From what I can find the entry in the Lincoln Memorial Album attributed to an unnamed Illinois clergyman is just

An Illinois Clergyman
"When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus."

- I plan to omit the other part if there is no objection

- This has been embellished by many - some saying Lincoln wrote it, said it to a friend, some apparently adding to front, some changing graves to crosses, and some making it part of a further conversation.

- Almost everything in the album IS attributed by name, making even the core suspect. --JimWae 08:33, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Can anyone find a more credible source that Lincoln ever said he became a Christian? If all that exists is a quote by an unnamed clergymen, then if this is included a note that this may be apocryphal is warranted. --Rfgdxm | Talk 14:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think it necessary to include any & all unattributed claims. Rather than pick one, they could be discussed as a group --JimWae 18:36, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

It would be far easier for a Deist to reconcile deaths of soldiers in a war with a divine plan than to do so for the deaths of young children, no?

The evidence found in his Second Inaugural address clearly shows he was no Deist, and as clear as his own words state, a Christian. The Christian theology used in interpreting the events of the war are expanations that no deist could or would assert.

From the Second Inaugural:

' Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." '

The Great empancipator appeals to providence here, which is profoundly Deist. He also cites current events as resulting from God's will, which may well be as Unitarian as it would be Christian. It may also be ironic, as it is prefaced with his elucidation of the absurdity of both sides interpreting the Bible as supporting their cause and claiming the Almighty as a benefactor. In other words, it is just as likely that Lincoln is proclaiming: "If you want to invoke an active God, you must accept the outcome as his judgement" as it is that Lincoln is actually propounding that view himself.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural indicates a great fluency with Christian thought and scripture, which is admitted by any Lincoln scholar. It does not necessarily indicate that he is a Christian, and certainly does not indicate any religious affiliation.

In any case, Deist is not an affiliation, If Lincoln has no affiliation, you should be arguing simply that he has no affiliation, rather than arguing he has a non-affiliative belief system you want him to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.46.240 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I need support from other Wikipedian.
I am new as a Wikipedian and can embarrass myself. Not really having tried to edit a topic yet.  Remember this as you evaluate my example of improvement. Two or three rejection I can deal with though I dislike.
In one Biblical Church the saved were called Christian. The meaning of Christian inhabits that of meaning Christianity as if it were member being in the Church within their church building. Unless other than the nature of things "Christian" has a general meaning most read and most accept as common. When referring to the occupation of the title existing along side the title President ( and here in this article many different title are used side by side which bothers me as to it's truthfulness ) as either occupied or not there is a better word to be used than Christian. When a title in a persons past life explains past and present ( and may be explains future ) circumstance a person commits to being this. Any person can commit even when that person is smaller than any title offered and has no title. A person commits to a title making a person committed to and carrying out all work associated with this title by the person accepting this title which proves the person with the title. Past present and future, the meaning is the same for as long as the title sticks when the title is kept.
I am not saying that there is no need for denoting reference to single or multiple belief, only that calling this Christian is not a correct way of having this done. "Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States" being the topic. ( "Commitments of presidents of the United States" being a better title. ) ( This is not to disgrace those who are Christian. ) In stead I am suggesting that as one choice we use the word and meaning "commitment" in place of "Christian" with it's better meaning, removing Christian as a try. "Commitment" is a larger and more enveloping meaning to what any "commit" to. ( and since Christian are protected in the United States Of America from any type of harm, mind, body, and soul, it is not only wrong to use Christian in this sense but also punishable. An example of this punishment is comparable with a member having said or done some small wrong within the large Church, catches hell outside the church. This being offensive to the person harmed is by Church decision to be refunded to the offended in the manner agreed on by both. Christian is a title only, and one people in the United States Of America take seriously. The Wikipedian who used "Christian" here has to some degree, small or large, offended the Christian. If small enough, a simple "I am sorry, I apologize" after fixing the problem,  often makes things right.
An example of the finished work will look like this: 11 | James K. Polk |commitment | Protestant | Methodist | Methodist | 1845–1849 | Never baptized until on his deathbed. Formerly more or less affiliated with Presbyterian churches. He eventually received a deathbed Methodist baptism by Methodist preacher John Berry McFerrin.[24]
I question many other title word definition such as "Protestant" "Methodist" and "Methodist" ( from the example I gave ) only will leave this for a future date when with help I can start to correct any mistake. At the moment the title "Christian" with it's use bothers me. I respect our President. Leroy 11-28-1952 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Former state churches in British North America

Colony Denomination Disestablishment Founder(s)
Connecticut Congregational 1818 Thomas Hooker
Delaware free -Christianity for office -- William Penn
Georgia originally free (except for Catholic), then Anglican by 1791 James Oglethorpe
Maryland Roman Catholic then Anglican after 1791 Lord Baltimore
Massachusetts Congregational 1833 Pilgrims, then Puritans
New Hampshire Congregational 1819 John Mason
New Jersey Dutch, then Anglican by 1791
New York Dutch, then Anglican by 1791
North Carolina Anglican by 1791
Pennsylvania free -Christianity for office -- William Penn
Rhode Island free -- Roger Williams
South Carolina Anglican 1790
Virginia Anglican 1786 London Virginia Company
Canada
Lower Canada(Quebec) Roman Catholic
New Brunswick Anglican
Newfoundland Anglican
Nova Scotia Presbyterian
Prince Edward Island Anglican
Upper Canada(Ontario) Anglican



Vermont - 1807

http://www.dinsdoc.com/cobb-1-6.htm

http://www.churchstate.org/Articles/Finding_Common_Ground.htm

http://www.bjcpa.org/Pages/Resources/Pubs/Pluralismsermon.html

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm

The first constitution to prohibit religious tests was the United States Constitution written in 1787
The treatment of religion in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is notably different from the provisions in state constitutions; not only are the national clauses noticeably shorter in both number and length, but the completeness of their prohibitions is unprecedented--no religious tests, no establishments, no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In all state constitutions there are some limits placed on these religious liberties. But the national government under the U.S. Constitution is prevented by clear and bold language from any power to control religion. Even the Preamble lacks the common reference to God which is even found in most current state constitutions.

Many states kept religious tests & other restrictions - 7 states still have some http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

Deism is not an affiliation

Deism is not, nor has it ever been, a specific church or affiliation. It's more of a religious philosophy that can believed in by people of any affiliation or none, a little like how Jimmy Carter is born again(though that's not exactly a philosophy, it does cut across denominations), but his affiliation is still firstly Baptist. Though it is tremendously interesting that so many of the early presidents held Deist beliefs, I think we should list it as, say, "Episcopalian, Deist beliefs" instead of the current "Deist; Episcoplaian", which gives the mistaken impression that the individual belonged to some sort of Church of Deism. Do you agree?--Pharos 04:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a note in the upper intro text & a small change in the heading will cover this. I am inclined to think entries like "Episcopalian, Deist beliefs" leave the impression that one was mostly an Episcopalian, when in reality the affiliation is not very strong at all & the beliefs are much stronger.

James Monroe deist clarification

I have done extensive reading on many of the founding fathers and they were all listed as Episcopalian. Recently people started to add deist. There is debate if Presidents were deists but it is simply a matter of personal opinion. It can't be proven. People are placing deist next to their official religion which is not factual. This is swayed information and very misleading. Please do not post deist as a fact. If you must talk about it in the body of the article and discuss the controvesy but dont state it as a fact.

As for Monroe, can it be proven that he was a deist? I have never really read anything about his religious views. Even if he was affiliated with a Christian church I dont think he was heavily religious.

President Madison

The reason why he was against having preachers in congress was because it would favor a specific religion. He wrote extensively about this. He didnt want a presbyterian minister to come and preach to a catholic, quaker, protestant congress and have federal funding towards this because it would be endorsing a specific faith. That doesnt mean he was not religious and anti church and state. He also signed a bill to aid the bible society. It is a matter of personal interpertation if he was diest or not therefore I took it down. Please discuss first with me if you want to change it. 

Thanks,

71.131.193.157 09:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Washington's deism is well documented - why did you remove that? Madison was quiet on his beliefs - but it is not a matter of PERSONAL interpretation that he was deist - he is widely regarded to have held deistic beliefs - and removing that bit of information IS personal interpretation. This article (& section) is about beliefs as well as affiliations. It is you who has come here & removed content that has been accepted for over a year. Perhaps it is you who should thus justify changes before making them, no? --JimWae 20:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Btw, being deist does not mean one is not religious either --JimWae 20:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Btw2, signing a bill cancelling a duty for one ship on printing plates for the Bible really gives very little information on his religious beliefs or affiliation. I plan to "take that down" unless you can provide details of why it is significant enough to stand alongside the other info given about his views on religion--JimWae 21:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I need support from other Wikipedian.
I am new as a Wikipedian and can embarrass myself. Not really having tried to edit a topic yet.  Remember this as you evaluate my example of improvement. Two or three rejection I can deal with though I dislike.
In one Biblical Church the saved were called Christian. The meaning of Christian inhabits that of meaning Christianity as if it were member being in the Church within their church building. Unless other than the nature of things "Christian" has a general meaning most read and most accept as common. When referring to the occupation of the title existing along side the title President ( and here in this article many different title are used side by side which bothers me as to it's truthfulness ) as either occupied or not there is a better word to be used than Christian. When a title in a persons past life explains past and present ( and may be explains future ) circumstance a person commits to being this. Any person can commit even when that person is smaller than any title offered and has no title. A person commits to a title making a person committed to and carrying out all work associated with this title by the person accepting this title which proves the person with the title. Past present and future, the meaning is the same for as long as the title sticks when the title is kept.
I am not saying that there is no need for denoting reference to single or multiple belief, only that calling this Christian is not a correct way of having this done. "Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States" being the topic. ( "Commitments of presidents of the United States" being a better title. ) ( This is not to disgrace those who are Christian. ) In stead I am suggesting that as one choice we use the word and meaning "commitment" in place of "Christian" with it's better meaning, removing Christian as a try. "Commitment" is a larger and more enveloping meaning to what any "commit" to. ( and since Christian are protected in the United States Of America from any type of harm, mind, body, and soul, it is not only wrong to use Christian in this sense but also punishable. An example of this punishment is comparable with a member having said or done some small wrong within the large Church, catches hell outside the church. This being offensive to the person harmed is by Church decision to be refunded to the offended in the manner agreed on by both. Christian is a title only, and one people in the United States Of America take seriously. The Wikipedian who used "Christian" here has to some degree, small or large, offended the Christian. If small enough, a simple "I am sorry, I apologize" after fixing the problem,  often makes things right.
An example of the finished work will look like this: 11 | James K. Polk |commitment | Protestant | Methodist | Methodist | 1845–1849 | Never baptized until on his deathbed. Formerly more or less affiliated with Presbyterian churches. He eventually received a deathbed Methodist baptism by Methodist preacher John Berry McFerrin.[24]
I question many other title word definition such as "Protestant" "Methodist" and "Methodist" ( from the example I gave ) only will leave this for a future date when with help I can start to correct any mistake. At the moment the title "Christian" with it's use bothers me. I respect our President. Leroy 11-28-1952 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
QUOTE=JIMWAE= * Washington's deism is well documented - why did you remove that? Madison was quiet on his beliefs - but it is not a matter of PERSONAL interpretation that he was deist - he is widely regarded to have held deistic beliefs - [QUOTE]

He is widely regarded by who? Do you see how this is a POV? It is not a fact but opinion. It is also widely regarded that he was a Christian. The articles on presidents affiliations are VERY slanted to saying that they were almost all deists. Secondly can you give me further information about the Madison bill merely cancelling a duty for the ships? I went to Madisons museum and online it says that the bill economically aided the philedelphia bible society. Can you please provide the information the compeled you to change it? Thanks,

JJstroker 23:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you read it Jim? The bill eliminated duties on imports to economically aid the bible society in mass distribution of the bible. I dont see how it is wrong unless you would like to bring something to light. JJstroker 04:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • and what about my edit do you disagree with? are you contending that obfuscationary generalizations are better than clear detail?
I dont have a problem with the edit I just dont see why It should have been changed in the first place.

JJstroker 05:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dubya not born again?

A recent edit removed the "born again" note from George W. Bush ... is this a particularly controversial label for him? I admit I don't have a source at hand, but I was under the impression that he embraced this as a label for his beliefs. --Jfruh 20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems non-controversial. From this CNN article:
...he quit at age 40 amid a spiritual awakening that saw him declare himself a born-again Christian.
And from this one:
Expressions of faith and values are familiar ground for American presidents, and this one, who became a born-again Christian in the 1980s after concluding he was drinking too much, is no exception.
I'll reinsert it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Article no longer just a list

This article has grown and is no longer just a list. Would other editors support a move of the article name to "Religious affiliations of United States Presidents" (my preference), or "United States President's religious affiliations"? --Blainster 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

- Religious views and affiliations of Presidents of the United States -- though I still think it's worth keeping it a numbered list in the text --JimWae 21:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My preference is driven by the thought that it is expedient to keep the titles to fewer words if possible. Will wait to see if anyone else wishes to comment before making any change. --Blainster 21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency

This article needs to be consistent with its linked articles, I find no mention of religions in several of the presidents talked about, shouldn’t religion be included in their biographies if it is included here?

State references?

Xn president?

Adams, a Unitarian, would have considered himself Xn. To say they ARE Xn is to say more about them than we know from their AFFILIATION --JimWae 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Eisenhower

The evidence for Mennonite/ River Brethren all points to his mother. The evidence also all points to her joining JWs in 1895 when Ike was 5 - meaning when he was 5 (or earlier) she was no longer a Mennonite/River Brethren. It would be strange to say that any child of 5 or less was consciously affiliated with any religion - and there is no evidence that he was M-RB before he was 5

The Eisenhower Library papers have Mrs DJ Eisenhower elected as organist in 1920 - I see no mention of joining on that date, nor in 1921 --JimWae 07:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deism of Early (Episcopal) Presidents

I notice that most of the early Presidents are listed as being both Episcopalians and Deists. I have a feeling that someone has mistaken their political and philosophical views for religious ones. The evidence for these Presidents being Deists is drawn mostly from their political speaches. However, these speaches reflect their education and social class more than their religious faith. One must remember that these men were heavily influenced by enlightenment philosophy... which, while it shared common language with deistic theology, was not the same as deism. For example, the use of phrases such as "Divine Providence" to refer to God was common to intelectuals of the period, and did not indicate a deistic theology... if one reads the sermons of the period, one finds that pastors and priests of firm, conventional Christian denominations use the term. Their use of such language reflects more their social class rather than their religious faith. These men were landowning, upper class (for America), educated men. They used the language of their class, not of their religion. One also must remember that these men were Episcopalians... and the Episcopal Prayer Book that was used in colonial times was repleat with terms such as "Divine Providence" and "Architect of the Universe". To the extent that they were outwardly religious, their use of language reflected an Episcopal upbringing.

All of this changed dramatically during the Second Great Awakening of the 1820s and 30s. Class distinctions blured, and the language politicians used blurred with it. Prior to that time, it was considered a little gauch for an aristocratic Virginian to wear his religious faith on his sleave. An educated politician of the period would couch his language in terms of enlightenment philosophy, because his audience (fellow aristocratic Virginians) would understand such language. After the Second Awakening it became much more common for politicians of all classes to use more religous sounding language. It became common for politicians to refer directly to Jesus Christ in their speaches. This was a cultural difference, however, more than a religious one. The electorate had broadened, and politicians were no longer speaking to well educated fellow aristocrats... they were speaking to a broader, more middle and working class population who were influenced by Evangelical philosophy more than Enlightenment philosophy. Where prominent politicians of the generation of the Founding Fathers talked of "The Rights of Man" and "Divine Providence", those of their children's generations spoke of "Manifest Destiny" (and their grand-children used even more directly biblical inspired language during the debates over slavery). Blueboar 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Washington and Masonic funeral

I see no reason to mention the fact that Washington had a Masonic service at his burial... The Masons are not a religion. This is like saying Washington had both a Christian and a Military burial service. His membership in the Masons is irrelevant to his religious affiliation (whether Deist or Episcopalian). Blueboar 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's disuss this in one place only. Is ee no reason to include the funeral at all in this article Talk:George Washington and religion --JimWae 23:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey... you were the one who added the edit summary "take it to talk" ... so I did. (Well, OK - you didn't say which talk, and there is as good as here). I would think that the fact that he was buried by a particular religious affiliation would relate to an article entitled "Presidential religious affiliations". Seems relevant to me. Blueboar 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Again... the Masons are not a religious affiliation nor a religion. Whether Washington was a Deist, or an Episcopalian... a Deist Mason is a Deist, and an Episcopalian Mason is an Episcopalian. The Masonic part is irrelevant to his affiliation. All sources say that the Episcopalian Order of Burial was read at his funeral. Thus, he had an Episcopalian funeral (that's what the Order of Burial is). No source says that any other religious affiliation conducted a funeral service. Please stop reverting, as it is getting close to WP:POINT. Blueboar 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And this article does not restrict itself to affiliations with established religions - the service is definitely of a religious nature. If religious words said over one's dead body say something about one's religious views, then omitting one service is POV --JimWae 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Affiliation vs. Beliefs

Question... is there a difference between a person's religious affiliation and their religious beliefs? I see them as being related but different. For example, I feel that a person can be a Catholic by affiliation, and yet in his private beliefs question or even object to the dogma of the Church. He might be a "Cafeteria Catholic"; he might not be a good Catholic; but he is still a Catholic by affiliation, isn't he?. I think the two concepts have become conflaited in much of this article, especially as it reguards the first few Presidents. These men were clearly affiliated with the Anglican/Church of England/Episcopal Church. They also had (to a greater or lesser degree depending on the individual president) Deistic beliefs. I do understand the reasoning behind including the fact that these Presidents may have had Deist beliefs, and I think it appropriate to include that information... but there is no "Deist Church", or even a "Deist Religion" to be affiliated with. Any thoughts?

  • I will selectively quote from the intro:--JimWae 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Since there have seldom been any churches of Deism, strictly speaking Deist is not an affiliation in the same way Episcopalian is; it is included in the list below, however, to give a more complete view of the religious views of the presidents... Many people are interested not only in the religious affiliations of the presidents, but also in their inner beliefs... In general, it is difficult to define with any certainty the faiths of presidents, because no one can truly be sure what relationship (if any) exists between another person and his deity, and because presidents, as public officials, have generally tried to remain outwardly within the mainstream of American religious trends... With regard to Christianity, distinguishing affiliation from belief can be somewhat complicated. At issue, to a certain extent, is "What counts as belonging to a church?" Must one be a communicant to belong, or is baptism or even simple attendance sufficient? ... Numerous presidents changed their affiliations and/or their beliefs during their lives... Conversely, it is sometimes claimed that religiously unaffiliated presidents experienced death-bed conversions.
  • Strictly speaking, the article is no longer a list, nor is it strictly about affiliation. We could change the title to a much longer one, but is that really necessary?--JimWae 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure... given that MY first impression was to challenge things on the basis of affiliation (see above) it does seem like the title may need correcting. Believe it or not, I am trying to avoid a repitition of the edit wars we have be having. If I can be confused as to what the list critera is, so might others (with an even more dogmatic view of affiliation). If you enjoy constant argument, I suppose you can leave it as is. Doesn't bother me. Blueboar 02:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with WP:NOR - WP:SYNT

This article has some problems with WP:NOR and specifically the WP:SYNT section of that policy (also found at WP:ATT). In several cases, primary sources are sythesized to reach a conclusion about a President's religious affiliation. This is not allowed. An example is the claim that Madison was a Deist based upon his voting record in opposition to taxes and other state funding of various religious projects etc. We need a reliable secondary that pulls these disparate facts together to reach the conclusion that Madison was therefor a Deist. We can not synthesize these fact and say it oursleves. This is not the only situation where this occurs. Blueboar 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

could you list the occasions when it does? A first look at the article doesnt throw up that many problems. Hornplease 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC - WP:SYNT issues

Significant sections of this article are a synthesis based upon primary sources, and are thus Original Research. This isn't a POV issue... You can not use primary sources to back an assertion about what the presidents believed or what their affiliations might have been. I have raised this issue before, and recieved no reply. How do we fix this without gutting the article? Blueboar 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


  • The attributions are sourceable, they are not simply syntheses. The details are details about some of their religious views, and not intended as arguments. I will endeavor to re-find the sources for any that you specify as questionable. It was really quite easy to find a secondary source for Madison. The Hutson article names several other secondary sources who say Madison was deist --JimWae 08:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Great... please pick one or two and add them. The problem is not limited to just the Madison entry by the way (that was just an example)... we need relible secondary sources for many of the entries. I'll review the article and give you a list. Blueboar 14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see WP:SYNT problems with the entries on Washington, Madison, Monroe (although the claim that some people think he was a deist is cited the bulk of the material is SYNT), Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Fillmore, Pierce, Lincoln (although there are citations for his being Deist... the bulk of the section is SYNT), Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, T. Roosevelt, and Wilson.
Going beyond purely SYNT issues, I also notice that many entries (especially the later ones) do not have any citations. This definitely needs to be fixed. Blueboar 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There's plenty to support even Pierce summary - and considerable amount for others. Perhaps you mean to point out the general need for more source citations rather than attribute original research or synthesis? --JimWae 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I mean that we have both a lack of citation problem and a SYNT problem. There is a general lack of citations tht needs to be fixed, but right now I am focused on the SYNT problem. In several cases the article gives primary source material and facts to demonstrate that a President is a member of a given affiliation or religious outlook. That is a WP:SYNT issue. In order to use the primary info, you have to discuss it in relation to a cited secondary source who also used the same primary info.
Let's take Madison as an example, since I have already noted a big problem with his entry ... The article says he is a Deist. OK, fine, first of all we need a citation of who says this. But in addition, you give primary source information that supports this statement. You discuss 1) the Virginia General Assembly depriving Church of England ministers of tax support; 2) Madison's signing bills about bibles; and 3) his denouncing Congress's appointment of and payment of chaplains, and assailing "religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts." Even though each piece of information is cited reliably ... it becomes WP:SYNT when you bring it all together in support of the statement that he was a Deist... unless you can show that some reliable secondary source has already used all of these facts to reach the conclusion that Madison was a Deist.
For it not to be SYNT, you need to say something like... "Reliable expert X has stated that Madison was a Deist(cite). He supports this argument by noting that 1) while Madison was a delegate to the Virginia General Assembly deprived Church of England ministers of tax support, 2) Madison signed bills against bibles, and 3) Madison denounced Congress's appointment of and payment of chaplains, and assailed religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts."
Alternatively, you could attribute each primary argument to a reliable secondary source... as in "Noted Expert A states that Madison was a Deist because he was a delegate to the Virginia GA, etc, while Noted Expert B states that he was a deist because he signed bills against bibles, and noted Expert C states the same because he denounced congresse's appointment ... etc." The point being that you either must find a source that unties them, or attribute them individual to seperate sources. As they are, they are connected by your understanding and research... and that is a synthesis. Blueboar 01:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here I agree; it is possible for an Episcopalian to agree with all of Madison's positions; many living Episcopalians do. What we need is an argument from Madison's biographers that he was a Deist for these reasons, and evidence that this is consensus. You may find the former; I doubt sincerely that you will find the latter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case, we could not even say JFK was Catholic without citation. The straightforward solution would be to say up front that all listed affiliations are collections from all the sources and that none are the final word. As I said, the details are not meant to be arguments - just to give some details on their involvement with religions. Perhaps we can make that clearer by some statement up-front. There is not room in a LIST of every president to explain who uses what argument - that is more appropriately done in a separate article for each president --JimWae 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SYNT does not forbid primary sources nor statements of accepted fact. You seem to be presuming that every detail is meant to support a conclusion, when they are mostly just presentations of details of how they dealt with religious issues. I agree more sources are needed, but I think your repeated claims of original research and POV are skewed --JimWae 04:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not take it as my responsibility to add all the citations. I have often added citations for other people, even for some with whom I was disputing. I am not responsible for all of the content here. I was surprised by several of the presidents you chose as examples. I myself would like to see citations for what was added to the Nixon entry --JimWae 04:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What in Wilson do find a problem with? Have you a suggestion for alternate wordings in his or other entries?--JimWae 04:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The Pierce entry is now more sourced than the entire Pierce article is - yet only one mild flag appears on the Pierce article & this now has 2, both more strongly worded --JimWae 07:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We should have a Citation for JFK being Catholic, and for what is stated in the Nixon section. We should have citations for all of these statements.
  • You may not have intended that the details be arugments to support the statements that a given President has a given religious affiliation/outlook, but that is definitely how they read. If this is supposed to be a simple LIST... then we should not have any of the extranious details - just the name, denomination and a citation to a source. The details would be irrelevant.
  • No, it is not your personal responsibility alone to add citations... when I say 'you' I mean anyone who wants to add material to this page and not you personally. However, the onus of adding citations is the responsibility of whoever wants to add a piece of material to an article. As a major contributer to this article you (personally) should be a major contributer to adding citations. Please remember that any material without citation can be removed (however, I find it is less contentious and common courtesy to request the citation and give people a reasonable amount of time to find it before removing).
  • As to Wilson... adding the details about Wilson's father and Princeton's afflilation with the Presbyterian Church reads like a supporting argument for saying he was a Presbyterian... that is SYNT without attibution to a reliable secondary source who made the connection between these facts and Wilson's affiliation.
  • As to Pierce... same thing... the way the details are presented reads as if they are supporting facts to advance the statement that he is an Episcopalian. I agree that each detail is very well sourced... but what is needed is a source that ties them together. The argument that the details in this article are better cited than the details in the article on Pierce is spurious... it just means that the Pierce article probably needs citation work.
In short, we have two issues to deal with... first is the general lack of citations. The second is that, the way this article is structured, the details end up (intentionally or not) forming SYNT, and thus need a connecting citation. The first issue is easy to deal with... we can simply find citations (I will help look for them). The second will take more thought. Blueboar 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a citation to a highly reputable source (Congressional biography or some such) for every affiliation claim would reduce the appearance of SYNT issues. Suddenly details don't look like arguments, but just extra details (some relevant, others not). Things like whether Washington was a communicant need their own citation, but do flesh out the picture of his religious life. But things like voting records don't belong here, in my opinion: taking away tax support doesn't necessarily make Madison less of an Episcopalian. It isn't this article's job to explicate every president's policy decisions related to religion, and trying to extrapolate personal affiliation from public policy stances is a SYNT issue. Leave that to their biographers to sort out in context. Then we can cite them.
On another note, why does John Adams's entry read like a history of Unitarianism in America? Nothing past the first sentence is at all relevant here. Really, my take is that there are more focus issues than SYNT issues. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Addressing problems

OK, as I have said above, we have two issue to deal with. 1) the lack of citations in general, and 2) the synthesis/OR issues. I think the second will take a bit more discussion to deal with. But I see no reason why we can't start addressing the first right away. To start us off, I will add citation tags where I think we need a citation. Then we can start to fill them in. And yes, I intend to do more than just carp and complain... I will start looking for and adding citations myself to help with this. Blueboar 17:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK... I found this site which has helped to fill in most of the blanks. Blueboar 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Contraditions

We need to clean up and conform the two haves of the article... The first half of the article (listed by president) does not completely agree with the second half (listed by affiliation). Blueboar 17:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

John Kennedy

I removed some uncited "critics say..." comments on the Catholic faith of this president. If the who and what of this criticism can be cited, it could be added back. His putative membership in the Knights of Columbus needs verification as well. patsw 02:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care if you include it or not, but I believe Dave Powers' and Kenny O'Donnell's book, Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye discusses how Jack Kennedy joined the Knights of Columbus when he ran for Congress in 1946. (MCB/Boulder, 6/9/2007)_
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that his Catholicism was very controversial during the campaign. Of course, that means I have no idea which critics specifically said what. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln contradictions

It seems that the things written on this page contradict most of what is written about Lincoln on the page for his religious beliefs. Frank12 06:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Washington & Jefferson - What the source says

The Entry on Washington and Jefferson both use adherents.com as their sole citation. That source lists Washington as an Episcopalian and does not mention anything about his being a Deist. The website also lists Jefferson as Episcopalian but does add that he had Deistic tendency. I have corrected the text of this article twice now to reflect what the source actually says.... Please do not edit the article in a way that is not backed by the cited source. In the case of Washington, if you want to add that he was a Deist, please find a source that says he was a Deist... In the case of Jefferson, it is fine to state he was a Deist (as that is in the cited source), but please leave the information that he was also an Episcopalian as that information is included in the cited source. In short... please adhear to what the sources say.Blueboar 21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected three times now. This has to stop. If you want to list Washington as a Deist, please back the statement with a source. And leave Jefferson in the list of Episcopalians as there is a source that backs that statement up. Blueboar 15:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanksgiving Proclamations that mention Christianity

Is it time?

This article has more than its share of unsourced controversial statements. I think the time has come to just delete them all and ruthlessly demand that any such statement have a source when it is added. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Malfunctioning code

A reference recently inserted by Mangoe for Gerald Ford was malfunctioning. His entry was truncated and Jimmy Carter's beheaded, so that Ford acquired most of Carter's info and Carter didn't appear.

I looked and tried a few fixes but couldn't see what was causing the problem. Rather than lose the 1 or 2 changes to the article in the meantime, I've removed the reference. The problem has now gone. I'll leave a message on Mangoe's talk page, but if anyone can see the problem with the ref, please reinsert. Klippa (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an unclosed ref. Someone else fixed it already. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. See it now. But the close ref was put in the wrong place, enclosing the states. I've moved it to the right place Klippa (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, not quite. But it's fixed now. This time for sure! Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Well. I'm an idiot. I realised it wasn't right when I closed off the tag with the slash at the end of the open tag. So I took the slash out again. But I swear I put the close tag back in, and in the right place. Obviously I didn't. And obviously I didn't go back to check that it was right. Which is how this whole thing must've started in the first place. But I'm pleased it's fixed now. I'll just wander off and see what havoc I can cause elsewhere. Klippa (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning this thing up

I'm ready to tackle a cleanup, but I would like to impose some format changes while we're at it.

First, I want to put each president within the main list into a section, rather than as a list point. The presidents should appear listed in the index, and there are too many who need quite a bit of explanatory material.

Second, for each president I want to list the formal, adult affiliation first, before any other material. If this needs to be qualified (e.g. for the many deists) we put that second. Ditto for Eisenhower's childhood JW period and for nonmember attendees and the like.

Third, formal affiliation shall be recorded by the standards of that body. Generally this is going to be straightforward, but all those people who were attendees but were not baptized will need to be so marked from the beginning.

Fourth, I'm going to drop the state affiliations. They don't seem relevant and at present they are unexplained.

Fifth, any claim that lacks a citation is going to be deleted. (See especially LBJ and Nixon for particularly egregious examples.) This is a particularly touchy article about substantiation, and as far as I'm concerned anything nothing should be added without citation.

Last-- well, last would be Lincoln. His section is far and away the most complicated and most problematic, and I personally don't intend to deal with it until I'm finished with everyone else. If some other editor(s) want to tackle him, please feel free to do so.

I'm going to start this weekend, so I'd appreciate criticism of this scheme before then. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All of this sounds good. I was tempted to quibble and say that affiliation should be listed in chronological order (ie if particular President was raised as a Presbyterian in childhood, converted to the Episcopal Church as an adult, and became a Baptist in old age, the order that they were listed in would follow their life... Presbyterian; Episcopal; Baptist) but that proves problematic in some cases... In some cases the claim of affiliation overlaps... This is especially true the Presidents who are listed as being Deists... most of them are also listed Episcopalians for the same period during their life. So I think your idea is correct. List the primary adult affiliation first (perhaps in bold), then list any previous or subsequent affiliations with explanitory notes.
The one issue that does need to be thought about is how to differentiate between self-identified affiliations (ie where a President himself stated that he adheared to a given affiliation) and externally claimed affiliations (ie where a third party has claimed that a President adheared to a given affiliation). This will be particularly important with those listed as Deists. In most of these cases (Jefferson being a possible exceptiion), these President's self identified with the Episcopal Church... and the claim of Deism comes from third party sources. If we were dealing with Living People (see WP:BLP), we would give much more weight to the self-identification (and might even ignore the third party claims if they were not corroborated). Since, (except for Carter, Clinton and the two Bush's) these are not Living People, I can not say we should ignore the claims of the thrid party sources, but we should note the difference in some way. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The main issue I see with chronological listing is that what people are most interested is their religion when they were president. In fact, I think that affiliation should be listed first, even if they changed in later life.
The deists are in general easy: official Anglicanism tied to unofficial deism. As far as I can tell, the attribution of deistic beliefs to them is not problematic, but the identification of Jefferson as Unitarian is a problem which we will have to tackle. The problem people are those who waited until they were almost dead to be baptized, or never got around to it. We need some way to express this succinctly.
Having looked at this a bit further, I think we have some serious source problems. We should not use the main adherents.com list at all, because they have a page for each president. However, looking at those pages reveals that mostly they seem to be a composite of us and Franklin Steiner. Indeed, Steiner seems to be far and away the dominant source, and as he is published by Prometheus Books, he has to be assumed to be somewhat hostile to conventional Christianity. There are a lot of other sources with big COIs, such as the source for Eisenhower having started JW coming from a JW source. We are going to have to fact-check the daylights out of this.
The third party primary sources are a problem, and we are especially going to have to be careful about attendance vs. affiliation. If attendance is the touchstone, then we can go to St. John's Lafayette Square and declare them all to be Episcopalians! Mangoe (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Where adhearants.com uses Wikipedia as a source for its information, we definitely can not use it... that would end up being a "circular reference". Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've taken out the state attributions, and my next step is to point the Adherents.com refs to the subpages for each president. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Using adherents.com so much makes it seem that the reader would be better to rely on them - except that they use wikipedia. Adherents should really only appear as a 2nd source for each.
  • The only recent change in affiliation I've seen so far is for Ike - making him MORE of a River Brethren & less of a JW. The religion of several presidents parents appears in the article (because it does have bearing). Ike's family was a JW bastion for a while, though his going to West Point clearly indicates he was not any longer (if ever) a standard JW
  • If we are using adult affilitaion during presidency, MANY were only attenders and NOT members during their presidency. That is a comparatively weak affiliation --JimWae (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Right now I'm only using Adherents.com for simple, uncontroversial cases, where the page in question does not refer back to us. In the long run those probably should get replaced too but one thing at a time.
I've looked at the contrary article about DDE, and while it leans heavily on the household being JW, it doesn't provide evidence that Ike ever considered himself a JW. I think the details of his upbringing belong in his own article; in this article, it emphasizes an influence that I cannot find any solid documentation for.
I intend to do something about the "attended but wasn't a member" presidents too, but I'm not sure what. Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower and the JWs

There seems to be a determined push by Jehovah's Witnesses to claim Dwight D. Eisenhower as one of theirs. I've checked around on this a bit and at the moment I think it's too dubious to be included; instead, I've used the Eisenhower Presidential Library article as my primary reference. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) ---

What about the following is irrelevant, dubious, or unsourced? His connection with JWs needs to be addressed, even if to weaken it


    • Eisenhower's religious upbringing is the subject of some controversy, due to the conversion of his parents to the "Bible Student" movement, the forerunner of the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the late 1890s; originally, the family belonged to the River Brethren, a Mennonite sept.[1] According to the Eisenhower Presidential Library, there is no evidence that Eisenhower participated in this[vague] group, and there are records that show he attended Sunday school at a Brethren church. - He did not participate, but he went to Sunday school? --JimWae (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue here is that people are trying to claim closer ties to the JWs than there actually seems to be evidence for. There's no doubt that DDE's parents became JWs and did not abandon it until their children had been grown for some time. What's lacking (and neither source you give asserts this) is a connection between DDE himself and the JWs that is stronger than his parents being members, especially in the face of evidence that he continued to have a connection with the Brethren. Both groups practice believer's baptism, so it's not remarkable that he didn't commit to either before leaving home. Mangoe (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So you propose to deal at length with his religion before he was 5 and not at all with his teen years - and not address the JW issue at all (other than a flat, unsourced denial)? --JimWae (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Come up with some evidence better than "his parents were JWs," which was already in the article! The fact is we have no record that I have seen, and if he had been baptized then, he wouldn't have been baptized by the Presbyterians. Mangoe (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In situations like this, "self identification" is to be given the greatest weight. What did DDE consider himself? Do we know? Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is reasonably good evidence given in the Bergman article that Milton Eisenhower, DDE's brother, fudged the family religious history a little. However I have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that DDE ever indicated any connection to the JWs. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference DDE library was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Hoover and affirming

See Talk:Inauguration Day#Swear vs. affirm for a discussion of Herbert Hoover's oath of office. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. It is not the role of wikipedia editors to evaluate the website of the US senate as dubious.
  2. After-the-fact reports are more reputable than before-the-fact "reports"
  3. Please remove the dubious template from Hoover
  4. Another after-the-fact report that contradicts the Senate site would be worthwhile including, if it exists --JimWae (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
At the moment I'm hoping someone can come up with the newsreel; the only copy I've found has no sound. The thing that makes the Senate site dubious (and every other site making the same assertion) is that one would think that a contemporary observer would have noticed that Hoover didn't do what he said he was going to do. There are a lot of sources on both sides of this issue. Mangoe (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is not the role of wikipedia editors to evaluate the website of the US senate as dubious. That is WP:OR --JimWae (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. The Post and the Senate are both reliable sources; however they are not absolutely so. At this point the only source sufficient to settle the matter would be either a newspaper report after the fact which addressed the issue directly, or the newsreel. I've been poking through newspaper archives looking for the former and haven't found one that would appear to address the matter; and I'm given to understand that the newsreel is lost. (I'm considering putting in an inquiry at Archives concerning the latter.)
It also occurs to me that the numerous references to the use of a bible at his inauguration (e.g. at the senate site [3]) implies swearing rather than affirming, because in the latter case the bible has no function.
In any case I've rearranged the passage to put in the issue of quakers not swearing oaths, and to but the caveat last. Perhaps you will find that more acceptable. Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Another problem case: James Buchanan

Buchanan did not formally become a member of a Presbyterian church until the end of the war, and I've found a personal letter of his stating that the reason for the delay had something to do with the response of that church to the war. However, I have yet to find good documentation of exactly what the issue was. Any help would be appreciated. Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird bias in the intro

"With respect to such dogmatically non-Trinitarian bodies as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, we at least have firm dogma about the nature of Jesus as a guide...."

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? Who is "we" and what is this "firm dogma about the nature of Jesus" of which "we" speak? This sentence has got to go. It's late, but I still may take a stab at it. Thmazing (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.16.107 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Didn't realize I wasn't logged in.
The main issue here of course is the seeming emphasis on Trinitarianism as the One True Way for American Presidents. This issue is obvious in the paragraph cited above and in its neighboring paragraphs as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmazing (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Firm" in this case means that the doctrine of the Trinity is well-established, and that it is thus straightforward to determine whether the various bodies subscribe to it. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tyler as deist

I have found many, many claims that John Tyler was a deist. I have found absolutely no substantiation for this assertion. I have therefore struck the statement for now. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Washington as a Deist

I've taken out recent changes assigning Washington to deism. (There was also a change taking off Jefferson's formal Anglican affiliation; it's a fact, so it's going to stay.) This article needs to be consistent with George Washington and religion, and until there is a more conclusive determination, he should not be labeled a deist. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree... The key is that we must have high-quality citations to back a claim of any religious affiliation. And we must not remove claims that are cited to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue Tags

A lot of work has gone into this article since I tagged it as having NPOV, OR, and other problems (back in April of 07)... I am not sure that they all apply to the current version of the article. Shall we remove some of them? If so, which tags? Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At the moment my only real concerns are over the still excessive reliance on Adherents.com, and over the section on Lincoln, which I haven't really dared to confront. I've made at least a preliminary pass over everyone else and don't see any big OR or NPOV problems with them. So it seems to me that we can probably lose the tags.
I'm thinking that as this article is increasingly non-list-like, it might be preferable to rename it "Religious affiliation of United States presidents". Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... You're right... It is far more than a list. I approve of the suggestion to move. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly removed the tags for now. Some sections still need work, of course, but mostly on improving the citations. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Church or on the Person?

Several months ago, someone changed each occurance of "Episcopalian" to "Episcopal". It has slightly bothered me ever since. I think the issue is whether we are approaching affiliations from the stand point of the denomination, or from the stand point of the person. A member of the Episcopal Church is an Episcopalian. If we are focused on the denomination then it is correct to list George H.W. Bush (Bush the elder) with "Episcopal" (to indicate that he is a member of that Church), but if we are focused on the person we should list him as being an "Episcopalian". I don't really care one way or the other, but I do want to make sure that we are consistant. I note that the entry for Coolidge says "Congregationalist"... if we focus on the denomination it should be changed to "Congregational". (note: This is not a big issue for most of the entries. For example, "Baptist" is correct whether we are talking about the denomination or the person.) Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Episcopalians are the the only exceptional case. I agree that they should be recorded as such and will do so now. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A DEIST

I've gone to and joined a number of religious and spiritual organizations in my lifetime. As a nod to "full disclosure," I'm currently a member of the American Ethical Union/Ethical Society. We have probably as many belief systems as members, but we are more or less a group for secular humanists who want to be a part of a community of shared values--Deed Not Creed. We have members of the Rationalist Society, members who also belong to established Protestant churches, and members who pick and choose beliefs based on their conscience. I've also studied Theosophy and my grandparents were Freemasons, just like MANY of the Presidents were/are (and I find it odd whoever wrote the article didn't remark on those affiliations, but I suspect there's another article about that somewhere else--if not, there should be, and it should be referenced here.

Why do I think Freemasonry should be referenced here? Because it is as germaine to the issue as whether a President was "Unitarian" or "Deist" or simply held those beliefs. They're empty labels. All "Deist" means is that one believes a Higher Power created the world, then stepped back, so supplication to that Deity is moot. What the writer is using "Unitarian" to signify is that someone didn't believe Jesus = God. Then, there's all this "to-do" about whether Abraham Lincoln was "Christian" and I think it's really a stretch to say someone who isn't a member of a Christian church but agrees with/follows/admires the teachings of Jesus is "Christian." And it confuses the issue.

I think this article needs a major re-write, and the recommendation I'd make is: Be very clear about "Religious Affiliation." List the actual religious organizations to which the various presidents belonged. Separately, since it may be of interest, you might wish to discuss "Deism" AS DEFINED AS yada yada and who was NOT a member of a church but may have expressed that particular belief; also, separately, you may wish to discuss the "incarnations" of Unitarianism, and who belonged to what incarnation--which denomination or whether it was a privately-held belief.

Sorry for taking up such a big space, but this is complicated stuff, and I think your desire for brevity is causing some of the unclarity here. That, and having some opinion about people and religion and MAYBE what makes a "good person."--sdwahlen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdwahlen (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The argument is extremely well laid out here: http://www.deism.com/washington.htm At the very least, his name needs to be listed under "Disputed," for I and many others dispute the idea that he was traditional/orthodox Episcopalian. It just isn't true. Much like Madison, he should have a dual listing, whether it's "Deist (nominally Episopalian)" or "Episcopalian/Deist," etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common for such groups to try to claim Washington. We have looked into this at length, and always the evidence appears inconclusive. However, I have indicated the dispute more prominently. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument, however well laid out, is irrelevant. Deist isn't an affiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.46.240 (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Remaming this article?

This has grown far beyond a simple "List of" article... perhaps it should be renamed? I would think something along the lines of Religious affiliations of US Presidents would work. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We've brought that up before. I'm going to make the move and make the redirect point directly into the list section. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Washington and taking communion

I am removing the bullet point about Washington not taking communion... I feel it is extremely misleading. At the time that Washington lived, the norm for Episcopalians was to NOT take communion. Many Episcopalians took communion only three or four times in their lives. In other words, the fact that Washington might have frequently taken communion at one point in his life, but did not do so while President, does not really tell us anything about his affiliations. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Do you have evidence for what the norm was? Apparently Martha took communion regularly. The pastor thought Washington set a less than stellar example for others by not taking communion, and said so publicly. Removing info about W not taking communion would be removing one of the major issues discussed in many books --JimWae (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the issue of his taking communion or not taking communion is irrelevant. It tells us nothing about Washington's religious affiliation.
Hell, we don't even know if he did completely stop. All we really know is that he seems to have stopped taking communion publically. Given that we have ample evidence to show that, at an earlier point in his life, he was in the habbit of taking communion privately (ie at home), it is at least possible that he continued to do this while President, only no one thought it worth mentioning.
But let us assume that he did stop completely... we have no way to know why he may have stopped. It could be an indication that he had deistic leanings. It also could be an indication that he had become a closit Catholic, as a few fringe Catholics believe (after all, he would not have taken communion from an Episcopal Priest if he was a Catholic). It could simply be an indication that he wanted to avoid even the appearance of establishing one sect over another. Without the context of why he might have stopped, the fact of his stopping is irrelevant to this article. Mentioning it implies that there is relevance.
And finally, whether one takes communion or not has absolutely nothing to do with one's affiliation. Taking communion regularly is not required to be an Episcopalian... even today. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. Although the quality of the statistic has been degraded due to changes in the reporting form, there is in fact a distinction made between "members" and "communicants in good standing." OTOH, it does seem reasonable to me to push all of this off into the dependent article. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
If by "dependant article" you mean: George Washington and religion, I agree... and it already is discussed there (in much more detail). It is appropriate to discuss whether he was a "member" or "communicant in good standing" in that article, because that article places the information in the context of discussing Washington's religious habbits and attitudes towards religion in general, not just his affiliations. What I am trying to get at is that, in the context of his affiliation, noting that he was not a communicant does not tell us anything. It is irrelevant to the subject of this article, and thus slightly misleading to mention it (because it implies that there is some relevance). Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with "disputed'

I am inclined to go along with redoing "deist" and "disputed", but that leads to a pair of issues.

First, as regards the deists, the only case which isn't disputed at all is Jefferson-- unless one prefers to lump him in with the unitarians. Some are disputed more than others, of course; I would certainly include Washington under the "disputed" maybe deists, but maybe not Madison.

Second, the bigger problem seems more uncertainty of personal belief than actual affiliation. None of the supposed deists, for instance, has the least uncertainty about formal affiliation; the question is the degree to which this is purely nominal. As far as I can tell, the only real affiliation disputes are:

  • whether Van Buren was a church member or not
  • whether Eisenhower was associated with the JWs (though the preponderance of evidence suggest not)

Much of the rest can be chalked up to Steiner's skepticism, which I would prefer not to play up too much. For instance, the "doubt" over Monroe is simply that he expresses little religious sentiment. We do want to mention it, but it's not really a dispute.

I'm inclined to eliminate the "disputed" category or change it to "uncertain", because on these considerations. Mangoe (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head in noting the difference between formal affiliation, which is verifiable as to fact, and personal belief which, in most cases, is not. We have church records, statements of self-identification made by the Presidents themselves, etc. to verify affiliation. Unfortunately, in most cases, we don't have factual verification as to personal beliefs. What we have is verification as to the opinion of third parties about personal beliefs.
What if got rid of the list format completely, replacing the various bullet point lists with a text paragraph for each President that discusses their affiliations?... we could then include comments as to what the third parties say about their personal beliefs, with proper attribution as to who holds what opinion. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking actually that the best solution is to eliminate "deist" and "disputed" altogether and survey the issue of the deists and the irreligious up at the top. "Disputed" in particular seems to me to be the most problematic category, because it seems to really mean "people that Steiner thought were irreligious." Talking about it is OK, but Steiner's treatment is anachronistic, if you judge by the number of presidents who put off formal affiliation until they were out of office. In that regard I think this article needs a bit more preface as to the changing religious landscape in the country. I think the bullet format is OK other than that. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Take a look and see what I've done. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The concept is excellent. I have made a slight tweek in wording. One thing we need to do is attribute who says this.
Given that we now discuss personal beliefs such as Deism seperately, I have limited the "List" portion to just "formal" affiliations. This may require further edits. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you went a little too far. We should rstore some discussion of their supposed deism under the bullets. Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree... The more I think about this, the more I am of the opinion that we need to clearly seperate discussion of personal beliefs from discussion of affiliations. I am not trying to say we should not discuss the personal beliefs and leanings in the article... only that we should do so under a seperate heading, since that is a seperate issue from "affiliation". Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A list that has only Episcopalian for Jeferson is not worthy all the research that has gone into this article. Removing Deist from every entry in the list belittles the scope of the article. The list is still the heart of the article - and, appearing last, takes on the characteristics of a summary --JimWae (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Jim, the problem is that Deism isn't an affiliation, it is a belief. Affiliation and belief are two different concepts. The fact that we have been mixing these two concepts has been serious problem since this list was created. The solution to this problem is to discuss each concept seperately. I am definitely not advocating that we omit all discussion of personal beliefs from the article... I am advocating discuss them in a seperate section, with its own list. Even with Jefferson (whom I would agree clearly held Deistic beliefs) we should not list Deist under "Affiliation"... we should list it under "Beliefs". Jefferson's affiliation was Episcopalian, his beliefs were Deist. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Next problem: disappearance of adherents.com

The adherents.com website seems to have disappeared. I've been trying to reduce our reliance on it, but as it is also mentioned in the text we are going to have to deal with that if it doesn't reappear soon. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup... that is a problem with relying on websites... they disappear, get moved, get edited (sometimes to the point that they no longer support what our articles say they do) etc. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd been working on reducing our reliance on it as a source, but the bigger problem is that it is mentioned directly in the text as a surveyor of presidential religion. If it doesn't reappear that section will need to be reworded. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
They are back. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC - Listing "Deist" in list of "Affiliations"

I have Asked the good folks at the religion project, to give us some third party opinions on the debate as to whether to list "Deist" in the list of Affiliations (and more generally, asking for input on how and where we should discuss the personal beliefs of various presidents.) If needed we can also post this as a formal RFC. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • What is needed is a broader section heading that includes more than affiliations. That way the list can have more than such a narrow scope. It used to include beliefs. We need a word like that, or preferences, or perspectives or positions - even if we need to make the heading compound --JimWae (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As I have said above, I disagree with this approach. There is a difference between an affiliation (such as Episcopalian, Congregationalist, Baptist, etc) and a belief (deistic, agnostic, fundamentalist, etc,). Both concepts should be discussed in the article, but they should not be mixed together. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama

Do we add Obama to this list, and how do we describe him? PatGallacher (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet... Adding him now would technically go against WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is a minor point, but while it is highly likely that he will qualify for this article come inauguration day in January, he does not do so yet... since he isn't a President (he is only President Elect). God forbid, but if something should happen to him between now and then, he would never qualify. As soon as he takes the Oath of Office, then we can all rush to Wikipedia and add him to the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the cites is an official communication from the church denomination. The use of the preterite, as well as other reliable sources reflect that he is no longer in the denomination. I will get the references and update the article to reflect this.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the references that predated his break with the UCC and will add this source : [[4]] Die4Dixie (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If someone want's to explain his resignation from TUCC and UCC and rev. Wright, they are welcome to attavk it. Several other presidents have explanations.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
At the moment we have one source whose reliability in the matter is not beyond question. Also, he's been in the White House for three weeks, so I think it would be more accurate for the article to assume a posture of some uncertainty or transiency.
In any case, for presidents who have made a definite shift we have shown both affiliations (e.g. GWB) in later section. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sound good. If he formally joins another denomination, we'll be sure to add it.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree... no reason to lock this down definitively... stick to the sources (attributing who says what if there is dispute) and don't speculate. Stating that Obama's denonination is currently uncertain is both accurate, and will prevent POV edit wars. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I received an email from UCC. It can be viewed at the talkpage for Barack ObamaDie4Dixie (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I combined Congregationalism with the United Church of Christ in a sublist

--since the UCC is Congregationalism's main successor. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands clearly... you are saying that UCC is a subset of Congregationalism?
Well, according to Wikipedia<smiles>, the UCC was formed from two Calvinist, constituent subgroups, one of which was descended from New England "Puritan"/Congregationalists (the Congregational Christian Churches) and the other which was formed of German-American "Reformed" (/traditional "Evangelical") churches (the Evangelical and Reformed Church). And apparently both of these groups historically emphasized that considerable latitude and autonomy be granted local congregations. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not quite accurate. The Evangelical and Reformed Church merger picked up Lutheran churches among the various strains included in it. Thus the eventual UCC, while it encompassed most of what was left of the congregationalists, included a rather wide range of theologies. When people are looking at this article, one of the things they are looking for is surely the character of the churches to which the presidents belonged; and I think the UCC merger was transformative enough to where it is better to keep the two distinct. I agree we should note the merger, however. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Oh, Mangoe, could you (or somebody) also pen a note explaining that the Adams's Unitarianism existed at a time when there was no formal denominational division between Unitarianism, per se, and traditional Congregationalism -- the only divide being the theological orientation of a particular local Congregational unit's pastor? ↜Just me, here, now … 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Prompted by the recent rather sloppy changes around Jefferson, I think it's time to have another go at him. I think what we have is rather poor compared with the section in his own article, especially the modern Unitarian attempt to claim him. OTOH the material in his article is getting full to bursting. Therefore I'm proposing to split out a new subarticle on Thomas Jefferson and Religion, using Thomas Jefferson#Religious views as a starting point, and summarize it in this article. I invite further comments and suggestions. Mangoe (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Question... Do we have a similar situation with Lincoln? Perhaps some of the material would be better placed in Abraham Lincoln and religion. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe most of it... Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

IP editor 71.142.250.117 has tagged the article as POV, with the comment that "way to much hinged on the opinion of Franklin Steiner"... I think there is a valid point here. While we do need to discuss the viewpoint that many of the early Presidents might have been Deists (or at least had deistic leanings), we should not rely solely on Steiner in presenting that viewpoint. Does anyone know of other sources that could be used for this section? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Grant quotation

I can find several citations for the Grant quotation. I think it needs more context; it was made in the wake of the failed attempt to pass the Blaine Amendment forbidding parochial education. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rusling on Lincoln & McKinley kneeling in prayer

topics tied together at http://myths-americana.livejournal.com/22002.html --JimWae (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... It seems we also have another survey book to discuss too, if I can find some reviews of it. I'm not sure how much we want to change this. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits and testing?

Sorry if my English is bad here (it's late, heh), but I attempted to edit a small part of the article to help clean up confusion and some one has seen it as vandalism so my edit has not been put through. It was for the Andrew Johnson section (hate the guy personally, but I don't think that matters. The Andrew Johnson Page states that he is "Christian (no denomination; attended Catholic and Methodist services)" with source, but when I tried to apply them... If anyone would like to add, please do. Little confused here, I guess, but I'm no Wikipedian anymore so I'll leave it to you guys. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the problem, the source on Johnson's WP page uses this page as a source "From: "List of U.S. Presidential religious affiliations" on Wikipedia website", so cannot be RS. The first source does not appear to be RS either, however the second source from a vaguely academic origin explicitly states: "Religion: No formal affiliation". So what you were doing was changing the Johnson reference from behind the reference. I was being polite by giving you an edit test warning. Johnson has one reliable source which states no affiliation, and until you can find an RS which gives the other side then I suggest you leave it as no affiliation. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of "non-denominational"

I would prefer to avoid the use of the term "non-denominational" as being potentially misleading. It could be interpreted as implying affiliation with a non-denominational church, which is not the case with any president. I think we are better off with " no affiliation" and clarifiers. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rutherford B. Hayes

Given the latest kerfuffle I've decided to revisit this and end our reliance on the adherents.com page. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

George Washington a "member"?

The article says

"Washington in particular maintained a life-long pattern of church membership and attendance".

His attendance was life-long, in the sense that he never stopped as far as we know - though it was apparently not always regular. However, membership is disputable - especially without clarifying what it means (as if that would be possible). He paid for a bench for his family, but he did not participate in the sacraments. I think we need to either remove "membership", argue over what constitutes "membership", or perhaps change it to "support". --JimWae (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before Jim (at the GW and religion article)... you are reading too much into the whole "did not take sacraments" thing... In the 1700s, Anglicans (Episcopalians) did not need to take Sacaments to be a member of their Church. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How can a modern reader tell what is meant by "maintained a life-long pattern of church membership"? He attended semi-regularly, financially supported, and held that religion of some kind was important for the republic --JimWae (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-regular attendance and financial support sound like good criteria for "church membership" to me. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Religion

According to Dictionary.com, religion could include atheist who believe in the Big Bang and evolution, but the article seems to only consider religions involving a god as actual religions. I think a note should be made mentioning that the article refers to "religion" as a belief involving one or more "god". (JR)² (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, one does not have to be an Atheist to believe in the Big Bang and evolution. Lots of monotheists, and pantheists do so.
That said, Context is important. The reason this article only considers religious affiliations that involve a God is that, so far, we have not had a US President who has belonged to anything else. I see no need to define religious affiliation in terms of Atheists until and unless we get a US President who actually is an avowed Atheist (note: Deists don't count as Atheists... as they do have a belief in God). So far, all of the Presidents have belonged to affiliations that are in some form or another Theistic. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Make the main section a chart?

Would it be possible to make the main section a chart similar to what we see in other comparison listings? like one of these charts?

The way it currently is, it's barely friendly for the reader. A chart would make things more coherent.

President Religious Affiliation Beliefs
George W. Bush United Methodist * Considered evangelical, blah blah blah

I'm terrible at charts but something like this. The current way that it is presented is hard on the eyes. Very busy. Charts organize the information.

The problem is that the material does not really lend itself to a simple chart. The subject matter is too complicated. But I do agree that the current format is very busy. I would go the other direction... I would slightly delistify that section and have plain text paragraphs on each President. It would look something like this:
  1. George Washington - Episcopalian.[1] (Discussed in more depth at George Washington and religion)
  2. John Adams - Originally Congregationalist[2] then Unitarian.[3] The Adamses were originally members of Congregational churches in New England. By 1800, all but one Congregationalist church in Boston had Unitarian preachers teaching the strict unity of God, the subordinate nature of Christ, and salvation by character.[citation needed] Adams himself preferred Unitarian preachers, but he was opposed to Joseph Priestley's sympathies with the French Revolution, and would attend other churches if the only nearby Congregational/Unitarian one was composed of followers of Priestley.[4] Adams described himself as a "church going animal".[2]
  3. Thomas Jefferson.... etc.
I agree with you. If we're not going to do a chart, we should at least make the list straight and orderly. This current "stair-step" list of information is really quite odd. Whether it be a chart or not, there has to be a change to it. OtherAJ (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The Religion of George Washington". adherents.com. Retrieved 2008-09-19.
  2. ^ a b "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  3. ^ "American President: John Adams". Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  4. ^ "John Adams". Unitarian Universalist Association. Retrieved 2007-04-22.

major party losing opponents', major party primary losers', minor party Presidential candidates' affiliations?

I would not recommend expanding this article, but is there a good single page on Wikipedia or elsewhere for collected info on the affiliations of other candidates? If I weren't curious about it of my own accord already, the statement in the lede that "No president thus far has been a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh or an adherent of any other specifically non-Christian religion" makes one wonder if there have been any such candidates. Шизомби (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there has been a Jewish candidate for Vice President, but AFAIK, all the candidates for President so far have been Christians. As for an article, you can always start one, assuming you have sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you're probably right regarding the major parties' candidates but it would be interesting to know for sure. I'm certain minor parties have had some atheists (Gus Hall, Earl Russell Browder, Monica Moorehead and David McReynolds at least), there's been at least one (Randal Alan Venson[5]) Muslim (I seem to recall a Muslim comedian having a novelty campaign but can't find him now), and Jonathon Sharkey, a Satanist. Шизомби (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I have moved the article from "List of United States Presidents by Religious affiliation" to "Religious affiliations of United States Presidents" ... primarily because the article has evolved away from being a list article. While it still contains a list by President, and a list by Affiliation, the article goes beyond that and discusses the topic in broader context. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious affiliations vs. religious views

I think it is time to revisit this issue. One's religious affiliation is not the same thing as one's religious views. There is a tendency that runs throughout this article to confuse the two. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

After looking at why you reverted my edit, I would have to agree, however I think it is important to include both types of information on a page about Presidents and their Religion. Unfortunately, I think this page is fairly confusing and disorganized as it stands (perhaps due to long lasting edit wars over this and other issues??) There must be a better way to present both types of information in an organized and concise manner.AJseagull1 (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it was an attempt to discuss both affiliation and views that created the confusion and disorganization in the first place. They are fundamentally different concepts and need to be discussed in separate articles. With Affiliation we have a distinct topic that should be easy to organize... affiliation falls into two classes... formal affiliation as shown in church records and documents, and informal affiliation as demonstrated by church attendance. Both classes of affiliation are easily verifiable as fact... we have both primary and secondary sources that we can use to verify these facts. We can build strait forward statistical information about these facts... X number of Presidents were Baptist, Y number were Congregationalists etc. This allows us to structure and organize the information into a single article.
With views we have a very different situation. I don't think we should have one article on the religious views of forty two separate individuals. Every President had/has his own unique religious views. Only for a very few do we actually have any clue as to what their religious views actually were/are, cases where a specific President actually discussed his views (or some aspect of them). With most of the Presidents, however, the President in question kept his religious views to himself. Instead we have to rely on third party opinion... what some one else thinks the specific President's views probably were/are. That gets us into discussions of reliability, bias, flawed logic, etc. Even if we stick to only the highest standards of reliability, there are often multiple opinions out there, and each President would require multiple paragraphs to discuss. The article would quickly spin out of control just in terms of length.
I think it is better to discuss the religious views of each President in the article on the President (or in a separate sub-article which would have the space to devote to properly and neutrally discussing the topic). I think it would be a mistake to combine discussion of religious affiliation and religious views into one article. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are two things going on. One is that about half the mess is being contributed by the tendency particularly of antebellum presidents to have rather confused or at least hedged affiliations. The other is the contention that in a lot of cases, particularly for the earliest presidents, there is a lot of nominal affiliation which doesn't represent their true views. The two particular problem cases are Madison and Monroe, as in both cases there isn't a lot of evidence that they maintained whatever churchgoing they had as youths. I think we do need to make the nominal affiliation plain (see especially Jefferson) but we don't need to go into it at length (see especially Lincoln). In the case of Madison we do need to revisit him because I don't think the quality of information we've been working with is all that good. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for Obama as unaffiliated Christian

Obama left Rev.Wright's Trinity Church. But is there any source that says he broke with the UCC as a whole? Bush also attended non-denominational services at Camp David but remained a Methodist. --Gary123 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. We should look into this. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Look through the archives at the main Obama article... I seem to remember talk about this at the time, but I may be misremembering. Blueboar (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency. In one place, his resignation from a UCC church is listed. In another it says he is unaffiliated. His resigning from one church does not imply that he stopped being basically UCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision mismatch re: Obama

Just wanted to point out that when I looked at this article this morning, the currently visible revision of the article showed Obama as "openly Islamic", but the most recent revision in the history showed that Blueboar had reverted an IP user's edit (vandalism) so that it should read "unaffiliated Christian". For some reason, the revision history and the visible article didn't match, and purging the cache didn't help. I made a minor edit (just removed some whitespace) and that seems to have fixed both the visible article and the revision history, so there's no record of the mismatch now.

Please keep an eye out for discrepancies like this - if we see this happen again, we should make sure the MediaWiki folks are aware of it, as it sounds like a significant bug in their software that has potentially serious implications. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(PS: The source associated with Obama's entry clearly states he is Christian, so unsourced edits marking him as Islamic should be reverted immediately.)

It seems to be fine now. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Formal affiliation: over/under representation

I have a problem with the use of the terms "overrepresented" and "underrepresented" in this section... it comes across as being somewhat POV and judgmental, implying that the religious affiliation of US Presidents should, in some way, reflect the percentage of religious affiliation in the broader US society. Can we come up with a wording that is less POV? Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Deism of Madison and Monroe

As far as I know neither Madison nor Monroe made any explicit endorsement of deism. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... but a lot of scholars think that their writings indicate a tacit endorsement of deism. That's a problem. If Madison or Monroe were still alive this would not be an issue... we have a much higher standard (explicit self-identification) when it comes to placing living people in any particular category. I have never understood why we set a different, lower standard as soon as someone is dead. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no explicit information on Monroe of any kind, so listing him as Episcopalian is certainly not a better alternative. 76.113.21.168 (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Steiner and Harrison

Upon further consideration I have removed Steiner's reference to the story of William Henry Harrison and the bible purchase. Steiner appears to be ignorant of early 1800s Anglican practice, and misunderstands the word "communicant" in context. One needed to transfer one's membership from one parish to another, and his intent to become a communicant needn't have implied more than that he intended to make such a transfer. Harrison's church membership is by contrast documented well enough. Steiner's intent, after all, is to show that the founding fathers and indeed many if not most presidents were not conventional Christians, so I am a bit loathe to take his analyses at face value anyway. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To say that Steiner appears to be ignorant of early 1800s Anglican practice is an understatement. I am beginning to think we should consider him an unreliable source, and remove all citations to him. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Given the comments at WP:RSN, I have followed up on this and taken Steiner out as a ref. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word 'accused.'

One can be 'accused' of lying about his religion, but can one be 'accused' of being of a particular religion? As if being or not being of a specific religious is a crime? This wording should be improved to be neutral.

Yes. If you look at the citations for Jefferson and Taft in particular what was said about them was plainly in an accusatory tone, that there was something wrong with being an atheist. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The information can still be presented without implicitly endorsing that viewpoint. For example: "Presidents such as Thomas Jefferson,[2] Abraham Lincoln,[3][4] William Howard Taft,[5] and Barack Obama[6] had their Christianity questioned during election campaigns..."
The problem with your suggested wording is that it could be seen as endorsing the counter-viewpoint... that these Presidents were indeed Christian, despite the assertions that they were not (personally I happen to agree with this counter-viewpoint... but that is my personal viewpoint, and not a neutral one).
The issue here is this: while we are supposed to stay neutral ourselves... our sources don't have to be neutral. Our job is to describe the non-neutral viewpoint of the sources, without either endorsing or dismissing them. The sources did more than simply question whether these Presidents were Christian. They actually asserted that these Presidents were something else - Atheists (and did so using accusatory language... remember that, from the viewpoint of these sources, being an Atheist is a moral failing... and one can "accuse" someone else of having moral failings). Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You're mixing up the questions. One is whether they were/not Christians, the other is whether the assertion should be regarded as an "accusation" or not. The former is a question of fact, and Wikipedia – by its standards – presents it as such. It's right there in the table (e.g. William Howard Taft | Christian). The latter is a matter of perspective, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to parrot the POV of those making the claim. On the contrary, it's supposed to make every reasonable effort avoid endorsing or rejecting that POV. If "question" is too mild a verb, then "assert" is fine. At least it doesn't present atheism as a moral failing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Except in the context of the section in question, the fact that we are presenting to the reader is that "these Presidents were accused of being Atheists"... and they were. Accusations are not limited to crimes... "You hurt my feelings" is an accusation. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No one said that was just about crimes; and I clearly did not. This is about Wikipedia's use of NPOV lanaguage. I get that you don't care, but I find Wikipedia's use of the word "accused" prejudicial and offensive, and unnecessarily so. I'm trying to find a way to convey the information without the implied endorsement of that POV, and trying to do so in good faith. Would you mind working with me? I've suggested "asserted" as the operative verb; do you have anything against it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
yes... Because, whether the accusation is true or false isn't the point... The point is that It was an accusation. It is perfectly neutral to describe an accusation as being an accusation. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Again you evade the question: what – other than it failing to endorse an offensive POV – is wrong with "assert"? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The word "assert" implies a degree of neutrality that is not present in the sources. It implies that those who said Jefferson and Taft (etc) were Atheists were about Atheism ... but that is historically inaccurate. Those who accused Jefferson and Taft of being Atheists were hardly neutral. They clearly felt that Atheism was a "bad thing". Using the word "accused" conveys to the reader what the attitude of the author was... ie it lets the reader know that the source was not neutral. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Would the word "alleged" work?... it is perhaps less harsh than "accused" while still conveying the accusatory tone of the historical sources. Blueboar (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In Jefferson's case, information about his religion doesn't get any more reliable than the Monticello estate

This is the article on Monticello which discusses Jefferson's religious beliefs.[6]  He was a former Anglican turned secular deist. He no longer accepted the Divinity of Christ in later life and was even labeled as an atheist by some of his critics.68.47.65.239 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Obama and atheism

I think it is misleading to state (especially in the lede) that Obama was alleged during the campaign to be atheist. It was not a recurring or widespread claim, and the only citation for it is Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter says a lot of things, for attention; they aren't inherently notable nor do they necessarily reflect common beliefs. It was also in his second year in office. The notion that he might be atheist is only mentioned in passing in Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. If he's to be cited as an example of religion being a question, it would be far more informative to note that he was alleged to be Muslim. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the last line suggesting some may have been secretly atheist. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
On this I agree. The single accusation vs Obama is not in the same league as the multiple accusations about others. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding Trump

Please be patient... Mr. Trump is not President yet. Note: This request is intended to be non-political... if you look in the article history, we made the same request for patience back in 2008, before Obama's first inauguration. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson

I changed Andrew Johnson to Christian. The Andrew Johnson row only gives one source ([7]) which:

  • Says "Although he identified himself as a Christian, Johnson is not known to have ever been an offcial member of any church"
  • Cites (through a tangly list of references to references, but probably at the end of them the most Reliable Source) Johnson as having said "As for my religion, it is the doctrine of the Bible, as taught and practiced by Jesus Christ." (See The Age of Hate, 1930, by G.F. Milton, p. 80.)
  • States he attended church services at various Christian churches.

Given that this seems to say at least twice that he identified as a Christian (however non-denominational), and never that he did not or that he identified as anything else, I can't see a justification for not listing him as one. TSP (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the narrow term "affiliation" with the broader term "belief" (these terms are not the same)... to explain: the term affiliation denotes which denominations the various Presidents belonged to, not their underlying religious beliefs (that is covered in a different section)... Johnson was not affiliated with any specific denomination. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar. The term "affiliation" tends to be almost exclusively for involvement in a specific denomination of Christianity, or, in some cases, involvement in perhaps one or more denominations which all fall within a broader "tradition" of Christianity, like Baptist, Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, and the like. Having said that, for some individuals, I suppose, it might be possible to reasonably describe them as being adherents of nondenominational Christianity, although I have some difficulties in seeing how we might find sourcing for that. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The page doesn't seem to be remotely consistent on this. Jefferson is cited as "Christian Deist", but with no indication that he attended a church of a Christian Deist denomination (if such a thing existed - the denomination he is listed with is "former"). Jackson and Buchanan are both cited as Presbyterian even though neither were members of that church during their presidencies. Grant is Methodist in one list and "Presbyterian, Methodist" in the other, even though it says he was never baptised into any church. Hayes and Obama have no denomination, but are listed as Christian.
You are saying a clear rule exists with regard to Johnson, but that rule is not applied anywhere else on this page; and I don't think it would be useful if it were. According to this rule, all the above should be listed as having no affiliation at all, because during their presidencies they were not formal members of a religious denomination; even though we have plenty of well-sourced information about their religion, which people will come to this page looking for.
Someone who wants to answer the question "Was Andrew Johnson a Christian?" I think would reasonably expect to find that on a page called "Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States"; they would find an entry for him; and they would go away believing that, as far as anyone knows, he wasn't - even though, if they followed the only source given for that entry, they would find the words "he identified himself as a Christian". This feels to me like actively spreading misinformation and contradicting our source.
I think one can reasonably be said to have affiliation to both a religion and a denomination; and attending churches and expressing support of the beliefs of a particular religion, if not consistently of a particular denomination, denotes a connection to that religion. The table has a column for "Religion" and a column for "Denomination"; I don't see why one has to be blank just because the other is. (And, again, this rule isn't applied for anyone but Johnson.)
On a slightly different matter, I don't think the distinction between the "List of Presidents by religious affiliation" and the "List of Presidents with details on their religious affiliation" on this page is clear, and often these two contradict each other; I think these need to be merged into a single table, so at least we can attempt to maintain a single well-sourced list. TSP (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The difference between affiliation and belief

I think we need to better clarify the distinction between affiliation and belief... one can be affiliated without belief... and one can have belief without affiliation. The two concepts are NOT the same. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your definition is not at all reliable. This article from the Pew Research Center acknowledges that three US President Presidents-Jefferson, Lincoln and Andrew Johnson- had no religious affiliation by the time they took office.[8] You also reinstated the portion of the summary table that labels Andrew Johnson as a Christian, when even other sourced statements in this article acknowledge otherwise. Sometimes, even slaveholders where not at all religious and did not at all own slaves in the name of Christianity, and I've noticed from personal experience that many cannot accept this fact.2601:447:4100:1692:2414:63EC:14F0:3AF7 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary comment was also not appropriate either. Monticello noted that Jefferson grew influenced deists Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke and Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, who both opposed standard religion,[9][10] and that he was a deist by at most 1787,[11] and perhaps even became one many years before. Sympathy to one's former church is also different than affiliation.2601:447:4100:1692:2414:63EC:14F0:3AF7 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

One interesting thing that claimed in a 1787 letter to his nephew Peter Carr, as cited in the Monticello article, was "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." In fact, his deism was well beyond Christian sympathy and similar to agnosticism.2601:447:4100:1692:2414:63EC:14F0:3AF7 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I already explained the concept of christian deism to you.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Blueboar regarding the differentiation of the words affiliation and belief, more or less as I indicated in a section above. I can also note that it is certainly possible for even a rather dedicated believer, like, for instance me, to "question" their beliefs. In fact, I have over the years rather regularly done so, particularly when evidence (most of which is found to be weak later) is presented. In fact, I have seen some reference work article on belief in some form (don't ask me which at this point) which more or less indicated that a required constituent of "belief" as opposed to "conviction" or some variation on fanaticism is at least a willingness to question belief when the available evidence supports doing so. There is also the sometimes unfortunate reality that there exists, so far as I can tell, no particularly widely held definition of "Christian" which can be used to help determine how to describe people of earlier times. And we certainly should not try to in some way impose modern views on previous ages. In cases such as these, where we have a lot of basically contemporaneous sources, our best course of action would probably be to accept the decision of the most highly regarded of them. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson:Plain Deist who sought to Study the Bible

He was not at all a Christian Deist. If you want to call him a Christian anything, the best would be a Christian Agnostic or even a modern day Unitarian Universalist. Studying Jesus from an intellectual standpoint and accepting the moral teachings of Christianity as one form of good morality is not the same as Christian Deism. He was religious in the stance of Deism, but not from a Christian point of view at all, even questioning claims of Christ's birth and death.[12]2601:447:4100:1692:30D5:B1C9:B7A7:2863 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not according to the cited source. Of course, a lot depends on which source you read... And a lot depends on which point in Jefferson's life you are looking at. His religious views changed and evolved throughout his life.
His formal affiliation (which is what this article is focused on), however, was fairly consistent.... He was an Anglican. This may have been for political reasons (for much of his life, one could not hold political office in Virginia unless one belonged to the established Anglican/Episcopal Church)... his affiliation may not have matched his personal beliefs... but he remained affiliated with the established Church. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source does not mention words "Christian Deist." The other source alleging he was a Christian Deist is also incompatible with Monticello's description which is sourced. Monticello says he was Deist who sided with the ideas of Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury.[13] With Trump becoming President, quit censoring facts for a lost cause. There is no point in hiding your political allegiance and why you censor this page 2601:447:4100:1692:752D:F572:9B28:A112 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity.... just what do you think my political allegiance is? (More importantly, in what way is that having any impact on this article?) Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge "List of Presidents by religious affiliation" and "List of Presidents with details on their religious affiliation" sections

I proposed this in passing above, but here it is properly.

Currently this article contains a table "List of Presidents by religious affiliation", and a bulleted list "List of Presidents with details on their religious affiliation".

The distinction between these seems unclear; and they are contradictory on many points - Jefferson is a Christian Deist in the table, but seems to be described as a Unitarian in the list, with the word 'Deist' entirely absent; Pierce is Episcopalian in the table but no specific affiliation in the list; Grant is Methodist in the table but Presbyterian, Methodist in the list. Sometimes former affiliations are listed in the table but not the list (e.g. Clinton); sometimes vice versa (e.g. Obama). In almost all cases the table and the list use different sources - sometimes the information given does not line up with the source given.

I'd suggest that there is no pressing justification for the division, and it would be much more likely that a usable, consistent list could be produced if this were eliminated. Thoughts? TSP (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. They should be merged, with preference given for sourced material. In terms of format, I favor a table. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, agree - the ability to sort is useful, and additional details can go in the final column. TSP (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. I think the two sections are redundant, and merging them makes a lot of sense. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Eisenhower, yet again

Claiming Eisenhower as a member of groups which practice believer's baptism is a problem, since he wasn't baptized back then. Mangoe (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nixon and Hoover

There was a section that listed them as possible non-Trinitarians in a paragraph that started: "Two presidents were Quakers (Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon) and information about their religion is harder to come by" I deleted this paragraph, because #1: It is lazy to the point of being useless, and #2: the views of their meetings are fairly clearly published: (Trinitarian.) [Nixon was a member of East Whittier Friends, then California Yearly Meeting, now Evangelical Friends Church, Southwest. Hoover spent his early childhood in West Branch Iowa, and was under Iowa Yearly Meeting, and his teenage and college years in Newburg Oregon (Oregon Yearly meeting, now NorthWest Yearly Meeting.]

All three of these yearly meetings officially claimed Trinitarian views throughout the time that Nixon and Hoover were members. The writer also questioned how devout the presidents were -- this is a fair question, as neither attended anywhere on a regular basis as adults, but this has nothing to do with the assertion that because there was a split in the 19th century, it is impossible to know what a Quaker believes (when it is trivial to look up which meeting someone like a president belonged to) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.11.225 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There are subdivisions with Quakers. You don't know if either of those men affiliated with the division that held the yearly meetings in question. 76.113.21.168 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain this instance.

Why is it that the United States sponsores themselves to be Cristian, when defacto they have a severe tendency to want to be Catholic, and go out of their way to attract Catholics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.159.51 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Um... The Catholic Church is a branch of Christianity (in other words all Catholics are Christians) so your question makes no sense. Blueboar (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Paula White

As of November 2019, Paula White has recently taken a White House position, which has led to more reporting about her status as Trump's "personal pastor." (See [14]; [15].) Because I understand this article to be about affiliation (a fairly objective fact) rather than the more subjective, harder to ascertain beliefs, and because I don't think Trump has ever stated any kind of formal affiliation with White's church or movement, or indicated that he should no longer be considered Presbyterian, I think it's premature to make any major changes to that effect. However, I do think his long association with her as his personal religious advisor -- as reported in reliable sources -- warrants some mention. So for now, I have added a mention of White to his entry, after the sentences discussing his Presbyterian affiliations. I have not made any other changes, including no changes to the overall denominational counts. I believe this is consistent with the detailed explanations for other presidents who may have had a primary affiliation but moved among other churches over time (see, e.g., discussion for Reagan and Clinton). But this may be something worth keeping an eye on going forward, should anything change in a more formal way. --EightYearBreak (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of links to adherents.com, and all of them are broken. Could someone go through and get the rest of them? I did a few but there are like 30 and it's pretty tedious. Thanks a lot, DemonDays64 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Catholic vs Modernist

Calling Biden a "Catholic" is really a terrible joke! How can anyone supporting murder of unborns, sodomy, same-sex "marriage" and adoption by same-sex "couples", artificial insemination, stem cell research, planned parenthood, non-Christian faiths and membership in World Communist organizations be considered a Catholic? Biden may be a member of the Catholic Church and attended a service with other "Catholic" Democrats, but his heart seems in the very opposite of Catholicism. Modernists like him aren't Catholics in their heart (in part or not at all), they try to change Catholicism into what is no more Catholic. 212.186.15.63 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No true Scotsman arguments will not get you far. Dimadick (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about what Catholicism is, in opposition to modernist wrongs. 212.186.15.63 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Total number

The table in the last section shows a total of 45, although Biden is the 46th president. Has he not been included yet, or is there an earlier mistake somewhere — anyone know? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president. Mojoworker (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
You may well have a point there... ;) Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Could I put the political parties of the presidents in the chart as well?

Hi,

I thought it might be a good idea to put the political parties of each president on the religious affiliations chart so that they could be easily compared. Any objections? AbeNMS92 (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No איתן קרסנטי (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_affiliations_of_presidents_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1197835020"