::::Fine enough, but it's anomalous in this article.  Wikipedia articles should be well written, not just "a bunch of things individual editors wanted to highlight."  Wikipedia has an article about American civil religion, which is fine.  The issue is that, in this article, that section throws off the narrative flow and doesn't really fit all that well.  It's a fine, notable, and well regarded historiographical concept.  But in a general overview of U.S. history, it breaks the chronology and doesn't work well here.  Yes, Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources, but that doesn't mean that every single thing in every single reliable source is fair game for every single article.  Editorial decisions need to be made to ensure that Wikipedia articles are well written, and not merely random collections of vaguely related concepts.  The issue is not the reliability of the source, per se, its the use of the concept specifically the way it is used here.  ''''''''''