<article_title>Abraham_Lincoln</article_title>
<edit_user>Rjensen</edit_user>
<edit_time>Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:28:41 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Religious and philosophical beliefs */ drop vague statement --there have been many answers</edit_comment>
<edit_text><strong><strike>The question of whether Lincoln was or was not a Christian and religious believer has never been answered.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Jacoby, Susan|title=Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism|date=2004|page=117|publisher=Owl Books (Henry Holt)|isbn=978-0-8050-7776-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; </strike></strong>Though he never joined a church, Lincoln was familiar with the Bible and quoted it often. He had the strong belief in a Providence whose purposes were not discernible. His integration of religion and politics, according to historian Mark Noll, gives Lincoln enduring relevance as the nation's greatest public theologian.&lt;ref&gt;Noll, Mark &quot;Lincoln's God,&quot; Journal of Presbyterian History, May 2004, Vol. 82 Issue 2, pp. 77–88.&lt;/ref&gt; Historians have debated whether Lincoln's frequent use of religious imagery and language reflected his own personal beliefs or was a device to appeal to his audiences, who were mostly evangelical Protestants.&lt;ref&gt;Carwardine, Richard J. &quot;Lincoln, Evangelical Religion, and American Political Culture in the Era of the Civil War,&quot; Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, January 1997, Vol. 18 Issue 1, pp. 27–55,&lt;/ref&gt; In recent decades, some scholars have emphasized Lincoln's ongoing religious skepticism while others have argued his beliefs evolved during the 1850s and gravitated toward an acceptance of mainstream evangelical Protestantism during the Civil War.&lt;ref&gt;For the historiography see Von Bothmer, Bernard &quot;Devout Believer or Skeptic Politician? An Overview of Historians' Analyses of Abraham Lincoln's Religion: 1959—2001.&quot; Lincoln Herald, December 2005, Vol. 107 Issue 4, pp. 154–166.&lt;/ref&gt; In the 1850s, Lincoln acknowledged &quot;providence&quot; in a general way, and rarely used the language or imagery of the evangelicals; instead, he regarded the republicanism of the Founding Fathers with an almost religious reverence. However, during the course of the Civil War (and the deaths of his children), Lincoln more frequently acknowledged his own need to depend on God and to seek to fulfill what he perceived to be God's purposes in the war, including the emancipation of slaves.&lt;ref&gt;Parrillo, Nicholas &quot;Lincoln's Calvinist Transformation: Emancipation and War,&quot; Civil War History, September 2000, Vol. 46 Issue 3, pp. 227–53.&lt;/ref&gt; In particular, historians have viewed Lincoln's second inaugural address in terms of the tradition of the Puritan sermon. Lincoln drew on biblical concepts and rhetoric to expose the nation's errors, notably the national sin of slavery, for which the prolonged punishment of the Civil War was God's judgment and punishment. Continuing in the jeremiad tradition, he prayed for an end to the war, called for forgiveness, and expressed hope for divine grace.&lt;ref&gt;Tackach, James &quot;Abraham Lincoln's Election Jeremiad: The Second Inaugural Address,&quot; Studies in Puritan American Spirituality, December 2004, Vol. 8, pp. 147–169.&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>SusanLesch<turn_user>
<turn_time>Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:50:09 AM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Religious views</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>Hi. I found an outright statement and cited that, from Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers (2004). It was so great to have Ms. Jacoby state the fact, that I thought it belonged here (I see some editors have spent years on the subject). -SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC) And it's been removed as "vague". I will wait until tomorrow to add it again, during which time the editor who removed it may find this discussion, which would be nicer than simply removing it. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)I've read the quotation (and the book she wrote), and the quotation adds zero to this article. For that matter the book is pretty confused as well.Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)I think she's explained a lot in this quote, that "everybody's right" about Lincoln, as she says later in the chapter. You are asking the reader to read all of this section, "Religious and philosophical beliefs", and then all of the article, "Abraham Lincoln and religion", to arrive at their own conclusion. I prefer to give the reader that conclusion up front. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)the Jacoby quote does not talk about the Wikipedia article and it conveys no new info on Lincoln--it is phrased in confusing paradoxical fashion and it seems to suggest that Wiki endorses her anti-religious viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Perhaps you are confused. No, Jacoby is open on whether or not Lincoln was Christian. No, she doesn't discuss Wikipedia. Why you think she would, I don't have any idea! My last reply above explained why the article needs this: the article is long-winded on religion, and points to yet another whole article about Lincoln and religion. No reader could deduce any conclusion, and so, I think a one sentence conclusion up front does belong. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)the article is not long-winded on religion -- it concisely summarizes the scholarship. Jacoby does not do that (she is hung up on 19th century debates by Herndon, Mrs Lincoln, etc) and instead she poses a question in terms favorable to her anti-religious beliefs. Rjensen (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)It's important to let the readers draw their own conclusion from the best references to L's own specific acts and utterances, especially on this subject. It's far too easy for a writer's own preferences to cloud things here. I can plead guilty to this very problem in my own editing on this subject in this article, which has since been corrected. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, but the Wikipedia perspective becomes something like, "You said all that to say what?" We have a 38K article supplementing a 6,000 character section here. How about rewording what I've added? Without changing the meaning, it may be possible to soften the words so people of faith aren't offended. Ms. Jacoby may have concentrated on 19th century sources, but she doesn't exclude modern accounts (she mentions hundreds of books written on the subject of Lincoln's faith, several by name). She only mentions Mrs. Lincoln once, to say she despised Herndon. Also, she said the person who wrote the second inaugural address could not have been an "unbeliever" in the 20th century meaning of that term. (Just making corrections because we ought to characterize her work fairly. I think she is a valuable source, because she is a secularist.) -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)instead of leading off with the speculation of an avowed atheist who wishes to cast doubt on Lincoln's Christianity, I revised it to open with a scholar who attempts to be fair and balanced and takes a NPOV approach that is consonant with Wikipedia's goals.Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Rjensen, it seems you have a problem with atheism. You repeatedly state an author's viewpoint in a negative light—and yes, she is a reliable source. When an author gives a point of view, that doesn't mean they can't be right. I'm sorry but I am tired of arguing with you. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)I've removed the contentious statements from Abraham Lincoln and religion as well. It is not correct to say that the question of Abraham Lincoln's religious convictions has never been answered. Rather, it has been answered but some scholars disagree on the conclusions drawn from those answers. I'm going to have to agree with Rjensen on this one and let the scholarship speak for itself. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)When you guys have authored ten books each, and both of you have been finalists for a Pulitzer Prize, then perhaps you'll be able to judge Ms. Jacoby as her peer. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Having now read the http://books.google.com/books?id=dj_BPwOrOn8C&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;pg=PA117#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false, I can conclude that not only are the claims of Lincoln's supposed atheism overwrought, but that you have misrepresented Jacoby's argument entirely to promote this fantasy on Wikipedia. At no point does Jacoby ever suggest that Lincoln was atheistic, only that he displayed a healthy skepticism of organized religion, which is not a revelation. The issue is sufficiently addressed in the current revision of this article and at Abraham Lincoln and religion. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)I object to Uncle Dick saying I misrepresented anybody. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Unfortunately you didn't dispute it. --greenTHE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>I think she's explained a lot in this quote, that "everybody's right" about Lincoln, as she says later in the chapter. You are asking the reader to read all of this section, "Religious and philosophical beliefs", and then all of the article, "Abraham Lincoln and religion", to arrive at their own conclusion. I prefer to give the reader that conclusion up front. </turn_text>