Talk:Christian right/Archive 3

A Request for Comments has been filed for this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics
--Cberlet 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has undergone extensive text damage due to vandalism (as of 15 Jan 2007). It needs to be protected from ill-mannered users.

?sign your post? Martin | talk • contribs 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was vandalized recently (March 4, 2007) by removing a {{bias}} tag. There is an ongoing discussion that was not answered. TheModerate 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

UserCberlet is engaging in continuing vandalism of the article to suppress facts that do not fit with his culture war POV. I will maintian a log of his vandalism starting below:

March 18, defaced the issues section

March 19, defaced the issues section to remove non culture war Christian Right Issues

TheModerate 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet Culture war POV Raid: (cur) (last) 01:22, 21 March 2007 Cberlet (Talk | contribs) (Improper addition. No seconday source reports this is a typical position of the Christian Right) After proposing a requirement for references Cberlet vandalized the article by removing a well referenced citation. He continues his inellectually dishonest campaign of hostile culture war POV deletions. For issues that agree with his cuturure war POV a single citation to a famously biased web site (Slate) is sufficient documentation. Bloomberg News, which is far more NPOV than slate is insufficient for issues with with he disagrees.

On personalities

Why is Thatcher included in the UK section? Thatcher really had very little to do with Christian-right politics in the way they would generally be understood. Equally, why is Jesse Helms not listed in the USA section?

Anti-Semitism

I think the Christian Right's blatant hypocritical anti-Semitism needs to be discussed in the article. Does anyone else find it hypocritical that they claim to stand for "moral values" and "a culture of life", yet believe 6 million innocent Jews deserved to be murdered in cold blood because of something their supposed ancestors didn't even do? Face it, all conservative Christians worship Hitler and if we continue to elect Republicans, the camps will be going up soon. History repeats itself.

This might fit a few way out fringe groups, but for most of the Christian right, it is nonsense. This accusation could not come from anyone with ANY familiarity with the Christian Right. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Corrie ten Boom, and others who resisted the Nazis and tried to save Jews are seen as heros. The abortion situation is likewise seen as another holocaust and resisting it to save the lives of the innocent is seen as simply basic Christianity. Pollinator 21:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was an ignorant statement. The more fundamentalist and right-wing among Christians are old testament oriented, and practically consider Christianity a branch of Judaism, they study the OT languages and customs, lead their congregations in traditional sader (sp?) meals, and some even don yamikas on these occasions. They tend to be very strong supporters of Israel for millenialist reasons.--Silverback 00:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Equating the Christian Right to Nazism is a common fallacy. It ignores that the seven million mostly Christian people were murdered in the same camps as the six million Jews. It also ignores the Nazi murder of over twenty million Russians and other Slavic [Untermensch]. Hitler drew heavily on Nietzschian motifs in his speeches, and political philosophy. Mussolini and the Italian fascists were also ardent Nietzschian and frequently quoted him, and used his ideas as a foundation of the Italian Fascist movement. Thus Nazi foundations are seen as antithetical to Christianity in philosophy as well as in deeds. While there is a well documented history of anti-Semitic behavior in European Christianity, the Nazis, like the Communists were anti religious. Hitler is reported to have harbored a pre-Christian mysticism, which was signified in the Nazi use of the [Swastika]; which symbol appeared in Neolithic times. Confounding Nazis and Christians remains a serious historical error. TheModerate 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The last time I checked, the "Christian Right" was very pro-Israel. Surely, there have been anti-semitic aspects in past centuries, but the exemplar Pat Robertson and company are currently dug in on Israel's right to exist within its Biblical boarders, and to defend itself. Having watched the 700 Club, I find them actively pro-semitic at this point in time. This has been true for at least couple of decades. The very term "Christian Right" is itself a slur upon a large and heterogeneous group of people that is akin to anti-semitic slurs rightly decried here. This article is as good a place as any to start recognizing that all sides of this debate are fully human and deserving of respect from each other and everyone else. TheModerate 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the Christian Right may not overtly be anti-Semitic, but you know what they're talking about when they cite the "secular-progressive agenda" or the "War on Christmas", or when these inbred rednecks rail against "big Hollawood lawyurz". We all know that Hitler was a conservative Christian who claimed to love Christ, and that the Christian God gave him a mandate to exterminate the Jews, and that history repeats itself. We all just *know* that when they SAY "ACLU", they're THINKING "ACLJew". Anti-Semitism is inherently conservative, and that's why all Jews are Democrats, because Democrats don't want to exterminate them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wizard1022 (talk • contribs) . Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some authors have written about a subtext of antisemitism in the Christian Right, but the hyperbolic claims in the above statement reflect equally obnoxious anti-Christian stereotypes.--Cberlet 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What are they taliking about? "secular-progressive agenda": generally, athiest activists and social policy they consider to violate the Hebrew bible (ergo, secular, not Jewish). "War on Christmas": primarily athiest opponents of the first amendment's free exercise clause; If this were rooted in antisemitism, they'd be talking about a "war on Chanukah," but they're not. "big Hollawood lawyurz": attourneys who make a joke of the judicial system by trying cases on TV instead of court rooms. "inbred rednecks": well, okay, that one's about as racist as you can get. Ever heard of Kinky Friedman? Get a little diversity. Stop hating people.

Major elements of what is referred to as the Christian Right are not just "not 'overtly' anti-Semitic". Rather, they are overtly pro-Israel, and pro-Semitic. One may disagree with their Biblical justification for Israel existing within what they believe is the land God Promised To His People Israel, as many Palestinians surely do. However, it is not in real dispute that much of the Christian Right does believe in the Promised Land for the people of Israel. Surely, there has been, and still is, an anti-Semitic segment, but we should try to assess this phenomenon realistically, and in the context of large pro-Semitic faction that now exists, and has existed for a couple of decades. Israelis whom I know agree that this pro-Israel sentiment is real, and is sincere. And No, I am not a Christian Right person, but only one who is open to a wide variety of sources and view points and believes that there is more truth in the world than we usually credit. TheModerate 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Intelligent Design paragraph

I recently modified the paragraph in the section called "Issues" dealing with Intelligent Design. It originally said:

"Promotion of the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in public schools as alternatives to the theory of evolution, in the belief that teaching evolution to the exclusion of creation unconstitutionally inhibits religion."

I changed it to:

"Promotion of the teaching of intelligent design in public schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution, in the belief that the universe is too complex and orderly to have arisen by random chance;"

I just checked the page again and Meggar changed it back to the first version. However, the first version is not factual for the following reasons:

It lumps together many different schools of thought and very disparate groups. For one thing, intelligent design is NOT religion, it is a scientific theory, like evolution. The theory of intelligent design says that the universe is too complex and orderly to have arisen by pure chance, thus the need for an Intelligent Designer. It does not specify whom or what, that is left up to religious groups. Intelligent design can include creationism, although others believe that the universe evolved to its present state with the help of a designer, which contrasts with Darwinian evolution, which says that everything arose by random chance. There are many different possibilities.

Creationism is also a scientific theory: it is not a religion, i.e., "Someone created the universe, and here's the evidence why." Like intelligent design, creationism also doesn't specify who the creator was. After all, Muslims and Christians have different ideas on who the creator was -- Allah or YHWH. It is therefore a scientific theory, not a religion.

The only time religion fits into the equation is if people advocate teaching literal, six-day creation straight out of Genesis, in exactly the manner described and with the words spoken by God ("Let there be light," for instance). Then it really is Christianity being taught, and not science.

So -- what is the Christian Right pushing? There are probably fringe groups pushing literal six-day creation straight out of Genesis, but I would say the mainstream groups simply want creationism taught. Again, "Someone created this universe, and here's the scientific evidence why." That's all there is to it. Obviously most Christian Right groups DO believe in six-day creation, but they merely want the scientific evidence presented, not the religious indoctrination. (I don't have the time to research the individual positions of every Christian Right group, so if I'm wrong about this, please let me know.) The Intelligent Design crowd is not even necessarily the Christian Right, so they have nothing to do with this argument.

Many articles from the secular press lump together the intelligent design, creationist, and Genesis groups together and call it all religion. This is completely false. Creationism and intelligent design are no more religion than evolution is, they're merely scientific explanations for how the universe arose. Also, most Christian Right groups do NOT want evolution to be excluded from the classes, but instead they want both theories to be presented side-by-side, in a non-biased manner.

So actually, the sentence in the article should read:

"Promotion of the teaching of intelligent design or creationism in public schools as alternatives to the theory of evolution, in the belief that the universe is too complex and orderly to have arisen by random chance;"

If you all think this is reasonable, I shall change the sentence to the above mentioned. Please give me your thoughts.

Yes, it would be an improvement. However it doesn't clear up another ambiguity - that is that intelligent design, in and of itself does not necessarily dispute evolution, ie. one could hold to evolutionary creationism. Pollinator 03:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that the inclusion of the creationism term is good with you. That is the main issue; I have no attachment to the last interpretation part of the original sentence. Whatever the poster of that section intended, it is not necessarily the explanation of choice for everyone. Could we just leave off any explanation of why it is believed; it just is.

Of the two terms, creationism and intelligent design, the former seems the more specific, although both together are fine. Intelligent design leaves open the possibility that it was not He that created it, but Something Else with an intelligence less akin to ours, not a popular idea with any Christians, right or otherwise.

So then, could it be stated as simply as possible:

"Promotion of the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools as alternatives to the theory of evolution”. Meggar 03:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It really should read "creation science", not creationism. Creationism is too ambiguous, with religious meaning first and only lately a "scientific" meaning. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It's really all Howard Ahmanson, Jr. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You might be joking; but really, there is no way to understand the democratic power of these ideas and movements, by looking for a few powerful people or a handful of potent influences. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Really Mark, we do understand. The wonderous power of movements and ideas is exactly that they can be in the control of so few hands. About the entry - just keep the intelligent design part. Support of that concept is indeed a touchstone. Meggar 04:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

When "money" is confused with "control", that's the mistake I'm talking about. Money is power; but not that kind of power. Anyway, I appreciate your flexibility on the terminology issue. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how the money is used - if you take a look at how the money is used - well it's used expresslly to control social opinion, in a very vigorous campain that expresses no reservations. And if you pay attention to the newspaper articles, and pull out the organizations involved, you'll notice that it's by no means a "broad", bottom-up movement, but very few tightly-knit organizations, the same ones, over and over, majorly funded by a very few extremely wealthy people, and in the minority funded by some very wealthy people, and not funded at all by "viewers like you". So although you may have a point that money does not neccessarily lead to control, in this particular case, it does. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As you have discussed, there seem to be intelligent design arguments at several levels. The Big Bang was the moment of creation for out universe. Roger Penrose, who is one of the most profound living mathematical thinkers and colleague of Stephen Hawking, presents a formula derived from the Hawking-Beckenstein expression for the entropy of black holes to quantify the size of the state space of the Universe that we are able to observe. He points out that the existence of thermodynamics as we have it (things progress from more orderly to less orderly states as time progresses) indicates that the initial conditions of any universe remotely resembling ours are absurdly improbable. He gives a very nice discussion in The Emperor's New Mind (Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-286198-0) and in The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-78572-3). The probability given is one part in 10^10^128. (Note that we live in a world where we make life and death medical decisions on one part in 10^2.) This amazing number is perhaps the most confident rejection of a null hypothesis in human history. What null hypothesis? That the universe as we live in it is the product of chance. Penrose posits a creator in response to this amazing result. He also notes that religious denominations do not follow from this. Others claim that there must be an infinite number of universes so we would get this one inevitably, and by virtue of its finely tuned nature we can exist to observe it. This unproven assumption of the Anthropomorphic Principle and infinite universes is a leap of faith as great as positing a Creator for this single universe. Moreover, it begs a question on the origin of the multiverse, and does not really simplify the creation problem. An entirely different view of Intelligent Design has it that the living organisms we see today are too perfect to be an accident; and therefore must have been created pretty much in the form we see them today. It is then said that this requires positing the God of Genesis to create the world in seven days; perhaps about four thousand years ago. Personally I find the first Intelligent Design argument more persuasive than the second. If we lump them together, we will make an error in the article. To recognize the differences will possibly help people to interepret the debate. TheModerate 02:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Relationsip to Catholicism

Can we add material that speaks to the relationsip of the Christian right/conservative Christianity to Catholicism/Catholics? --Dpr 17:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

Sorry to butt in and edit, but the sections on perjorative and benign terminology contained a lot of material that did not hang together. Plus, Theocracy is a real term, not an invention of the political left. But I did add another criticism of those on the left who conflate evangelicals, fundamentalists, and the Christian Right.--Cberlet 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit away... the article currently says "America journalist Kevin Phillips". If this guy works for a journal called America, the name should be italicized. If he's just an American (i.e., U.S.) journalist, America needs an -n on it. Since I know nothing about this fellow, I leave it in the capable hands of those "in the know" to fix it... Tomer^talk 09:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV2

Though the article as a whole is not entirely biased, I'm noticing that a few sentences and paragraphs seem to be reflecting a viewpoint or assumption, rather than an objective view which is either neutral or presents the arguments of both sides. In particular, the final paragraph in the "History" section, reading:

'The Christian Right does not represent all evangelicals. Some Christians are active on the left. In taking the Great Commission as a global political mandate for Christendom they have looked to government for support. They hold to a more left-wing ecumenical view of the Gospel. This socialistic perspective is not nearly as common in the U.S.A. as it is in Europe and the British Commonwealth countries. Then there are a significant number of evangelical Christians in America and elsewhere who are quite apolitical.'

Seems to be one person's viewpoint/observation. (It should also be noted that the quality is rather poor.) Anyone care to discuss this point? I haven't put a POV tag on the article thus far, as I'm trying to see if there's any kind of consensus on this. I would edit some of these biased points out, but I'd rather not start any revert wars as of yet. --Mister Mister 17:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing out unsourced claims, POV, and OR should not cause a revert war. Give it a try. The article could use a freshening up.--Cberlet 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

User: Cberlet. Please stop deleting well researched facts from the article. While you complain that others do that, while doing yourself it many times. I invite you to join the discussion on the Language of Bias to reach well researched conclusions jointly before vandalizing the article again. If you want to do a proper article you should join the discussions that are using real sources and real scholarship. Up to now you have been an opinion writer. You should improve the quality of your contributions or join blogs revel in particular biases that agree with your own. TheModerate 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)!

User: 208.27.111.130. Please stop this campaign of unexplained deletions and rewrites that remove valid criticisms of the Christian Right and dominionism.--Cberlet 22:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping this article on my watchlist to make sure this guy doesn't try anything again. Now, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, so I was wondering: If he keeps vandalizing this article and removing facts, can he be reported? I've seen several people reported for inserting blatant insults and other nonsense into articles, but I'm not sure if the same would apply here. --Mister Mister 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions are technically not vandalism, but on controversial pages it is considered bad form to do it. If it continues, we file a complaint and seek page protection until a real discussion takes place. Every page can be edited, but collective editing and courtesy are expected.--Cberlet 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User Cberlet: You are vandalizing this article by removing factual posts. You are a biased culture warrior. Get Honest. The issues I added are factual beyond doubt. Please explain why you deleted them, or restore them.

To avoid being accused of unexplained deletions, I'm deleting the following assertion pending documentation, as everything I have found has demonstrated a strong presence of the Christian Right in Katrina relief efforts. It also doesn't give enough information: were they critics of the slow response, or critics that there was a response at all? This passage's position in the racism section would tend to support an undocumented POV that a slow federal, state, and local response is evidence of racism. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Many have also voiced opposition to government-funded Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

I am also deleting the following passage, not because it is untrue, but because its location is POV. It was in the section on racism and multiculturalism. If you can find a way to explain how supporting the enforcement of border laws during wartime is inherently a racist idea or supported by the Christian Right for mostly or purely racist reasons, let's see it. Otherwise, the assertion that border control is innately racist is extreme POV.

Most of the Christian Right have also been staunch opponents of illegal immigration.

I removed the following assertion, not because I believe it absolutely untrue, but "in the past" is too vague a date. The article indicates the Christian Right began round about 1974, so before we go calling people racists, lets see some facts to back up the claim that the Christian Right post 1974 supported segregation. I haven't been able to substantiate the claim, but maybe someone else can:

In the past, southern U.S. Christian Right groups generally advocated and practiced racial segregation, but this is not openly advocated today by most of the Christian Right movement.

Any references to Dominionism and the Christian Right should be properly sourced and put into proper context because many Catholics in the Christian Right coalition largely favor the tenets of Christian Democracy, not Dominionism, which is a Protestant movement. If a person or group has verifiable Dominionist leanings then it's fair to list them, otherwise it's an ad hominem argument.--146.145.70.200 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A new section, "Contrasting Viewpoints"

Just to let everyone know, I'm taking the final paragraph under "History", describing the Christian Left, as well as the section "Theological versus Political conservatism", and editing these paragraphs together into a new section titled "Contrasting Viewpoints", near the end of the article. I believe it will help the article flow better, keep things in their proper place, and move the alternate views into one section rather than multiple ones. If you have any concerns or objections to this, please list them here. --Mister Mister 07:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You should work on the Christian Left article, instead of this one. Alternative views INSIDE the Christian right are appropriate but not views OUTSIDE it. Rjensen 07:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Rjensen. This is not the page for a discussion of the Christian Left and I am part of the Christian Left). Just the mention with a link is proper.--Cberlet 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A short summary of contradictions would be fitting, I think. That's pretty normal, right? Having brief information about a relevant topic but also linking to the main article? The Christian Left is certainly a relevant subject when discussing the Christian right. Karwynn (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Internationalisation

As the former incarnation of this entry concentrated on the US Christian Right, I thought I'd provide meat to the international summaries of people and organisations through fleshing out references to the Australian, United Kingdom, Canadian and New Zealand Christian Right movements. There are significant similarities and differences between the national movements, as one can note.

User: Calibanu 12:41, 09 May 2006

"Opposition to same-sex marriage laws and other measures to promote equality for homosexuals by groups such as the Focus on the Family and Traditional Values Coalition."

The phrase that I removed was "...and other measures to promote equality for homosexuals." I doubt members of the Christian right would say they oppose equality for all, but that the legislation they oppose would not foster equality. I'm not against saying their opposition isn't limited to same-sex marriage; but as it's written now it's advocacy language, as slanted as saying liberals oppose domestic phone taps and other anti-terrorist initiatives. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, liberals do oppose domestic wire taps and other anti-terrorist initiatives. However, their motivation is not pro-terrorist, but pro-privacy. In the same way, it's entirely accurate to say that the Christian rigth opposes measures that promote equality for homosexuals. I just don't see you point, here. Al 22:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the statement makes a judgement as to the reasons and motives of the subject, in either case, and therefore is POV. It needs to be removed. Pollinator 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"However, their motivation is not pro-terrorist, but pro-privacy." What made you think my example was suggesting otherwise? Did the way it was worded suggest you had to deny liberals were pro-terrorist? Still, maybe I'm wrong. If it's just me who thinks the presentation is slanted, and everyone else is sure it's accurate and neutral to say they "oppose measures to promote equality for homosexuals," then I'll accept it. Of course, citation to a reliable source that supports the statement is still necessary; the link that's there now seems not to work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly link

Someone added this link — Religious Right History Revisionism — at Religious Right. Clearly, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in this article, not that one. I leave it to people working on this article to decide if it should be linked at all. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no shortage of web sites such as "Liars for Jesus". What the article needs is good NPOV research, and references to good journalistic writing. Please see the section on the Language of Bias section for a sampling of this kind of thing. The very title of the site suggests a certain lack of neutrality, so it may belong in a section about defamatory usages of the term "Christian Right". BTW, If you want a good discussion on revisionism I would refer you to "The Killing of History" by Keith Windschuttle, The Free Press (Simon and Schuster) 1997 ISBN 0-684-84445-1 for an excellent discussion of the epistemological foundations, methods, and techniques of historical revisionism. TheModerate 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Karwynn Changes

Ok, just made this edit. I'm guessing any article concerning both politics AND religion is going to be active, so here's my rationale:

First change: The Christian Right, funny as it may sound, is motivated by CHRISTIANITY :-) Right? I mean, Christianity correlates to tradition, but tradition had come from Christianity being practiced, not the other way around. Besides, non-Christian conservatives value traditional things as well, correct? I feel it's more accurate to call it based on Christian teachings or something than just tradition.

Second change: "social" piped to socialism, "liberal" to liberalism. THe second seems appropriate, I was under the impression that the social in "social liberal" referred to being liberal on social issues (abortion, gay marriage etc.). Not being a socialist. That would be an economic liberal (to an unspecified extent), right? So I re-piped social to society. Karwynn (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably make some changes shortly based on my opinion; however, I'd disagree with your first change somewhat. Both the Christian Right and Christian Left are movitivated by their own separate interpretations of Christianity; however, the Right seems to place more emphasis on keeping important things unchanged (EG: role of the family). The Right also seems more focused on a socio-religious governmental role as stick (legislating morality via penal code) where the Left focuses on it as carrot (acting to demonstrate Christian values of charity, etc.). While "Traditional" is a crappy description of it, it's more distinct than just "Christian".

I'd also disagree with the second change. While it is a comparably extreme position, yes, the most extreme Xian Left are not far from outright socialists. I might add a "relative" qualifier, but I think "socialism" might be the correct link. Abb3w 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, socialism is economic liberalism, isn't it? ANd the issue with the Christian Right is a social one, not an economic one, isn't it? Also, I think you should reconsider on my first edit: people on the Christian Rght don't oppose changes just to oppose change, they oppose change when the current system is in line with their religious views. Tradition isn't the cause, it's just a correlation. The real motivation is CHristianity. Take the illegalization of abortion: abortion has been around (on a global scale) for centuries; one of the great Czars (forget which one) kept aborted fetuses preserved in jars. To oppose abortion on the global scale is certainly not traditional. I'd say the viewpoints are motivated by faith than just tradition. Karwynn (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I only disagree somewhat. I'd agree that it's Christianity that's the source of the motive, but only the conservative aspects. As for the socialism question, the Christian Left mainly has a socialist (economic) emphasis; as such, the reference to the contrast is accurate.Abb3w 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

POV section removed

I didn't see any way to salvage the polemic recently added on political influence. It's hopelessly POV, propagandistic. Terms like arch-conservative, fundamentalist are tossed around with little understanding. Ther whole section has a mocking tone. The editor needs to read Wikipedia:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone, and the AP policy on use of the term fundamentalism. Pollinator 00:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, it seems to have been added back in from an earlier version of Wikipedia. While I'd agree it's POV/Prop, it does have some interesting numbers. Of course, since the most immediate source is an old Wikipedia piece, primary source(s) to validate would be worthwhile. =) Abb3w 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose merging Conservative Christianity into Christian right as I think the merge would strengthen both articles, and give a clearer purpose to the article.

I know that they are not the same thing but there is some overlap. Christian right is a currently quite well defined socio-political class (in some countries) that seems to make a somewhat coherent article. Conservative is a broad term that is associated with anything reactionary or traditionalist, and the conservative article seems to be attracting a lot of editing about the Christian right, and more than its fair share ofconflict between editors. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Christian right is predominantly a political expression, whereas this topic deals with (or should deal with) the theological implications as a mate for the Liberal Christianity page. Pollinator 02:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The focus of the Christian Right article is political, whereas the Conservative Christianity entry is more theological. To merge the two would tend to obscure the theological issues which are, for more serious Christians, the deeper and more important ones. It is possible to be theologically conservative and yet not support the Christian Right. Please keep the two entries separate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.167.41.28 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposed merger seems ill-advised. The two items are separate. Any push to merge them will merely serve to marginalize both. Christian right refers to a political movement in a few democratic countries. Christian Conservative refers to a world-wide theological movement. Only someone opposing both viewpoints would fail to see the distinction. 49er 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)49er

I agree will all three commentators that Conservative Christianity is basically a theological term (and probably also a religious movement.) Yet several editors have written political material there. If one of you chooses to scrap the content currently at Conservative Christianity and start again, I would support that.

As part of the merger, I would hope to see the more theological material deleted, as that is dealt with more comprehensively (and with more editors) at Evangelicalism, Fundamentalist Christianity amd Traditional Catholicism.

The blend of diverse content in the article indicates that it is just as difficult to define the word conservative in religious and theological terms as it is politically. Have you read all the complaints at Talk:Conservative Christianity? (Mine was the latest in a long line.)

Worldwide? This is how the article starts:

Conservative Christianity in the United States is a sub-division of ...

If we do agree to keep the Conservative Christianity article, then we should listen to those who say that it is it should be a theological article, and hold the line against edits that are introducing political material that belongs at Christian right. Also we should find volunteers willing to put in the time to give it worldwide coverage (no-one has done it so far, hence part of the motivation for proposing the merge.) I added a "globalize" banner last week. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

<---------Please stop using asterisks to lead off sentences. It makes the page difficult to read. Just use stepping colons, please. I have reformated.

I oppose the merger. The Christian Right is a term that is used in much scholarship to describe political mobilizations by predominantly para-church ministries and organziations. Conservative Christianity is primarily a theological concept, also much used by scholars. One can be theologically conservative, and yet not be part of the Christian Right. If editors are placing political text on Conservative Christianity, they should be encouraged to move it here. A merger is not the solution for this confusion. --Cberlet 12:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And in that regard, I propose that most of the text of the Dominionism section be cut and moved to that page. Way too long here.--Cberlet 12:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Grant?

Grant section is unsourced and overly narrow - anyone have a cite?

Anyone?--Cberlet 04:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

People

I recommend removing Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church from this list as he is just too eclectic to fit into any neat category and is quickly disowned by both Right and Left. For example, Phelps has been a constant and vociferous opponent of the Iraq war. unsigned post.

The post above is not by TheModerate 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We should demote the present People section back to the discussion page. It nominates people as "Christian Right" who do not self-identify. It offers no support for the opinions expressed. Which makes it weasel words. Especially in view of the fact that many uses of the term are pejorative, it is inappropriate to identify individuals without citing reliable sources. When, and only when, the identification of an individual can be attributed to a reliable source that is cited do they have any legitimacy the article. I suggested below that we start with the following NYT piece:

1. New York Times March 3, 2007 Evangelical’s Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/03evangelical.html

"Leaders of several conservative Christian groups have sent a letter urging the National Association of Evangelicals to force its policy director in Washington to stop speaking out on global warming. The letter, dated Thursday, is signed by leaders like James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; Gary L. Bauer, once a Republican presidential candidate and now president of Coalitions for America; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; and Paul Weyrich, a longtime political strategist who is chairman of American Values."

That starts with three well known and reported individuals: Dobson, Bauer, and Weyrich. TheModerate 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: Absent comment and response I intend to demote the current people section to this discussion page after seven days. I hope that we will then get reliable sources upon which to rebuild a scholarly page. See the Articles and Sources discussion page below. Please help with the collection of background information pointers there. TheModerate 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Canadian section...

Paradoxically, though, censorship policy has been a continued point of contention between Canada's lesbian, gay and arts communities and federal Customs.

I'm interested in knowing what this really means. If I am not greatly mistaken, it means that, hypothetically, a pederastic gay man who has just returned from Thailand with a DVD he made of his adventures would have considerable trouble getting that DVD past Canadian customs officials? Or what?Theavatar3 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Furthermore, many Christian Right organisations from the Anglosphere use discourse, tactics and strategies from the United States Christian Right in their own contexts, leading their feminist, gay and social liberal opponents to foster their own global networking in retaliation.

The latter half of this sentence is loaded with many debatable implications. For instance, it implies that any feminists, homosexual, or social liberal is necessarily an opponent to the Christian Right and that together they constitute the major opposition groups (to the exclusion of others). It also inaccurately suggests both that these groups are retaliatory in nature and that any global networks of these groups have been created specifically to combat the Christian Right. While there may be individual issues on which some of these groups as a whole may disagree, it's more fair and accurate to say that advocates of leftist policies would be in opposition to the Christian Right. Additionally, while it's possible that feminists as a group may tend to hold to leftist ideals, the Christian Right in general does not advocate policies that would be in opposition to feminist ideals, such as opposing women's sufferage, outlawing women in the workplace, or opposing gender equality in general. The only such topic that may fit this bill would be abortion, which is largely an issue unto itself and not solely the domain of feminism. I recognize the potentially volatile nature of this topic, and since a Wikipedia administrator reverted my changes (without thorough consideration IMHO), I'm proposing them here for discussion and the opportunity to further explain the edits. I believe the following sentence is more accurate, carries a more neutral and less combative tone, and is not as badly in need of citations:

Many Christian Right organizations from the Anglosphere use discourse, tactics and strategies from the United States Christian Right in their own local contexts in opposition to advocates for some leftist policies, such as the expansion of gay rights and legalization of abortion.

See the entire third section for examples, should the statement in general be in question. -- Deacon 03:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian right as category

Implied in the use of Christian right as a category are the remaining grids; christian left, secular right, and secular left, which seem pretty much empty. The whole point of a term is to allow you, in a natural way, to divide up a larger group into smaller groups, and relate the groups to each other. Religious right, to me, seems like an us-and-"them" kind of division. Also implicit in this is the assumption that Christianity makes you different in some way, in some essential way, from what you were before. That is a very kind thought, but is it true in practice? Is this category practical? Martin | talk • contribs 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) updated Martin | talk • contribs 04:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people use the term Christian Right as if it is made up of people: that some people (or even that Christians) "belong" to the Christian Right. You either "are" or "are not" part of the "Christian Right". Martin | talk • contribs 02:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On the word "social" in social conservative

There is more to social than sexual. The Catholic Church's "social" teachings, since Leo XIII, have been on the right to a living wage, on poverty, on the oppressed - almost Marxist mindfulness of class conflict. I think that the term "personal conservative" comes closer to describing the issues denoted than "social conservative". And there mayt be better terms, in the sense that they more accurately indicate what is meant as well as what is not meant. Martin | talk • contribs 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "reactionary" may be more literally accurate than "conservative" as well, as many of these changes have already happened, and the "conservatives" want them changed back; this detail, however, is largely moot. "Social conservative" is how the concept is most commonly expressed (politely). Similarly, the teachings of the Catholic Church you refer to would be characterized as falling under "socially progressive"; they are issues of the (less prominent) Christian Left, not the Christian Right. (See also my earlier exchange w. Karwynn above.) Abb3w 13:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I will go back and read what you said above to Karwynn. Meantime I note that you commented on the term "Conservative", rather than the term "Social", which was the question. To ask it in another way, why is one side of "helping the poor" called "social progressive" and the other side called "fiscal conservative"? Martin | talk • contribs 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Or is the side that is against "helping the poor" properly called "social conservative"? Martin | talk • contribs 02:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation page for "Social Conservative (polite)"

The social conservative article is international in scope. Mixing in, or trying to mix in, the polite usage of Social Conservative, confuses what might be a simpler topic. This suggestion will probably seem odd at first, but look at that article, and see whether you think that a move in that direction would be helpful. Martin | talk • contribs 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The idea was triggered by the comment, above, about the polite usage of Social Conservative Martin | talk • contribs 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

This is one of the weaselier articles I have encountered on Wikipedia. A few examples:

"Many who approach this topic are unable to form a balanced perspective that recognizes the fundamental humanity of the opposing camp."

"The term Christian Right has been criticized as pejorative by leaders of conservative Christian groups, along with phrases such as theocrat and religious extremist. Some writers characterize these terms as representing Christianophobia, while some writers such as American political commentator Kevin Phillips, feel the terms accurately describe the movement. The tendency of some critics of the Christian Right to use the terms Christian fundamentalist or evangelical as if these terms were equivalent is seen as problematic by a wide range of commentators. Others have suggested that "Christian right" may be preferable to "Christian Right," insofar as the latter implies a higher degree of unity than the movement actually displays." (Every sentence in this paragraph)

I am sympathetic to the difficulties of writing a balanced article on a (generally) pejorative term but simply suggesting that "some people feel this way but some people feel other ways" is weasely through and through. Consider revising without these terms, citing specific examples.

Irene, are you suggesting that there is an objective truth to be found in the propaganda surrounding this term? You should put "christian right" into google and read. TheModerate 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Google news doesn't work where you are?

I think that there are media reports on the Christian right which might be able to source different points of view. Weasely nonsense like "The term Christian Right has been criticized as pejorative by leaders of conservative Christian groups" might be replaced with "Rev. Donald so-and-so of Christian Conservatives International has criticized the use of the term Christian Right as pejorative" I don't have access to a decent search engine for recent journalism or I'd take care of this myself.

This unsourced article suggests three books from several perspectives that might be digested into an NPOV article. Irene Ringworm 05:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion. Lets put Christian Right into google news and tabulate the sources that use the term; say the top 50 hits. That will give some data from which to understand the usage of the term. If the results contain no references to anyone who self identifies as "Christian Right", we must recognize the term as primarily a propaganda term and is clearly a straw man and change the writeup to reflect that. Are you game for a little work? If you are really unbiased, we could move on to the top 100, and if you don't like the results get from the top 50. We could even delete the ones that don't fit into your Weltanschauung if that would make you feel better. LOL TheModerate 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting exercise. In the top 50 here's what I find:

• 40+ self-described liberal blogs and/or op-ed pieces
• Several reviews of Chris Hedges' book which has "Christian Right" in the title
• Two non-editorial uses in the New York Times

Here's a summary of the usage: (a) refers to one or more groups or figures associated with socially conservative groups such as Focus on the Family or American Values (the NYT article specifically excludes the National Association of Evangelicals) (b) a group of voters, primarily white evangelical Christians, who align with the Republican party and promote a socially conservative agenda, esp. in opposition to homosexual marriage and/or abortion (c) a Straw Man embodiment of Bush policies and politics, esp. those which opposehomosexual marriage, abortion, and sometimes science/evolution. What I notice is missing or poorly represented in the main article are the following facts: (1) The "Christian Right" do not self-identify as such. (2) The Christian Right do not comprise a single group or organization (3) The groups which are said to comprise the Christian right do not promote any single denomination The google news search does confirm that the term is generally used as a pejorative. I'll dig a little deeper and propose an edit. Irene Ringworm 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Irene, I am also working through the top fifty. What I find is broadly compatible with your results. I am also compiling each sentence which uses the phrase "Christian Right". Some interesting patterns are emerging. I will get back to you when I have compiled some numbers. A clear point is that Christian Right is a phrase often used by some to describe others. Interestingly, the most often cited source using the term is the New York Times. A small set of individuals is repeatedly identified as "christian right", usually by opponents. I think we can actually do a good piece of work here with some statistical analysis of categories and some good foot notes that will allow readers to understand the process we used. I will upload results of this analysis for discussion when I get it done, we can then decide how to rewrite the introductory paragraph. I think we should also be careful to avoid asserting that particular individuals are part of this group. Citations, particularly if they are often repeated, should be used. That way the reader will be able to vet the assertions using the sources. I think there may be libel issues to consider, if some consider this label to be defamatory. TheModerate 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also trying to lay my hands on one of the books cited here. Google news will give us a sense of how the term is used now but I'm interested to try and find out where and when the term originated and who the key figures were pre-Focus on the Family. I'm also looking for uses in non-oped pieces which use the term to describe a voter demographic, as in the NYT where its usage is similar to "soccer mom". Will check back in a few days. Irene Ringworm 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I will count up some linguistic usage patterns for some quantitative measurement. Hopefully I will have that done when you return with your historical study. TheModerate 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you also check the usage of "Religious Right", which is far more common. The article discusses the reasons for the sematic distinction here, and the lack of such by others. It's a major headache, but having the two wikipedia articles separate and noting the imprecise informal use as synonyms seems about the best that can be achieved. Abb3w 20:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article seems to be inconsistent in explaining that the "Christian Right" does not denote a single movement or group, nor are the various component organizations necessarily affiliated or even in agreement. The description of the Christian right appears to be a construction of a straw man rather than an encyclopedic entry detailing the specific beliefs of groups deemed part of the Christian right. Irene Ringworm 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it at least falls somewhere in the Mustelidae, although classification seems more likely to be less Mustelinae than Lutrinae — someone otter {{fixit}}.

The first example given is a fairly recent edit. It seems a just polite way of saying "pigheads on both sides couldn't change their minds even with Doctor Frankenstein performing neurosurgery", but politeness is about all it has going for it; unless someone can source it to back it up, it ought to go.

For the second, I'd agree that specific, sourced examples of

• Leaders and writers in the RR, and instances of their objection to "Religious Right", "Theocrat", "Religious Extremist", "Christianophobia"
• An instance of which terms Phillips has terms are accurate, and where
• Multiple examples of commentators objecting to the interchanging of fundamentalist and evangelical, selected to make the "wide range" obvious.
• Instances of suggestion of "Christian right" over "Christian Right"

could infinitely improve the quality. However, I've higher priorities for my Wikipedia time at this instant requiring less external research, so I'm going to be lazy and pass the buck. Abb3w 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm intentionally passing the buck as well. Irene Ringworm 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On reviewing this article, I thought that bias, hostility, and propaganda gambits, were in evidence. The recent edit is not "weasel words" it is a suggestion that all sides are Human. You need look no further than the previous edit to research the comment. It went: "Furthermore, many Christian Right organizations from the Anglosphere use discourse, tactics and strategies from the United States Christian Right in their own contexts, leading their feminist, gay and social liberal opponents to foster their own global networking in retaliation." The Wiki link to the Anglican Communion will show you that the Christian Right is not a thing of some imaginary "Anglosphere". The American branch of Anglicanism formerly known as ECUSA is finding out that the Anglican Communion is now heavily weighted towards Africa, which is generally more conservative or "Christian Right" than most nations in the "Anglosphere". Moreover, the "feminist, gay, and social liberal opponents" did not develop their agendas "in retaliation" against the "Christian Right", but rather in an attempt to bring about social change favorable to their views and lifestyles. The comment about Dr. Frankenstein, though a bit impolitic, does get the essence of the edit. Anyway, I thought that a little politeness might be a novelty in this topic.  :-))) Anyone with a better idea for how to couch a controversial article is welcome to try their hand. TheModerate 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The terms "Christian right" and "Christian Right" appear in scores of published scholarly books and hundreds of published scholarly articles. Determining the use of terms with a Google search when so much scholarly uasage is so easy to locate is not a useful exercise. --Cberlet 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that quantifying quantifying current usage is useless. Far from it, because quantitative measurement tends to move the discussion out of the "sez who?","sez me!" mode. I do agree that good neutral scholarship would be helpful. However, many academics are full fledged participants in the Culture War, so they must be vetted carefully for neutrality. Some usage in academic circles is as biased as the current news writing, though probably a bit more polished. Please make suggestions as to some of the works you have in mind. Preceeding unsigned comment by TheModerate

As of now, Google scholar lists some four thousand plus references in journals, and eight hundred or so in books. The chronology of origin and coalescence of the movement into political activity is detail, worthy of inclusion if references may be found; however, the bare existence of such a political association is all but inarguable, even while the degree of uniformity, unanimity, and organization of the movement(s) is a question a doctoral student might pull a fun thesis out of. Such work is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, however. Specific citations from prominent researchers one way and another is probably the best choice; such researchers that are arguably sufficiently noteworthy (in religious and/or political studies) to have Wikipedia entries may be linked within WP to allow the determined the needed data to make further judgement. This is probably where the best middle ground may lie.

I believe the exact relationship (cause, effect, or mutual feedback loop) between the Religious Right and various secular/atheist/liberal/gay/feminist/whatnot movements is a sufficiently open and ambigous question that a specific form should not be declared without a citation.

My "Frankenstein" assessment was intended to avoid weasel words, favoring hyperbole over obscenity; in no way was it encyclopedic in tone, although I've heard worse whilst eavesdropping on academic conferences — from less controversial areas to boot. However, it seemed polite and clear enough for a talk page. =) The edit in question, however, was not so encyclopedic; it was an implication that one side or another was overtly rejecting the humanity of the other. As the references to Falwell's 9/11 faux pas and the Westboro Baptist Church have been removed as too extremist to be representative, the position lacks citational foundation. Abb3w 05:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly work must be vetted, because the bigotry on this topic in the scholarly community is as strong as in the popular press. I just did a search on Amazon, and most of the top books have inflamatory titles, and many are written by the scholars of whom you speak. I would suggest that a we shold vet any "scholar" by seeing what they have in this list. There are over 15,000 responses to "christian right". Scholars who produced this kind of stuff are not neutral sources. The top ten titles are: 1. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America; 2. Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism; 3. Why the Christian Right Is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto for Taking Back Your Faith, Your Flag, Your Future; 4. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Religious Right in American Politics; 5. Religion, Politics, and the Christian Right: Post-9/11 Powers in American Empire; 6. The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium; 7. Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy; 8. The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America; 9. Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement; 10. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right. Looking further down the list gives many more examples. TheModerate 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

These claims and proposals clearly violate basic Wikipedia policies. You are attempting to use your original research WP:OR to impose a specific point of view WP:POV. Please review these policies.--Cberlet 14:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Far from it. Just pointing out that the field is rife with bias, and any purported NPOV material should be vetted. That is just elementary research, not a POV in itself. TheModerate 15:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The question posed is: can you take a book with a title like "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America", or anything written by its author as NPOV? TheModerate 15:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The most recent the writer takes a biased position in the Culture War by ascribing only certain politically sensitive Culture War positions to her/his Straw Man Christian Right, while leaving out others like opposition to the modern traffic in sex slaves, and genocide in Darfur and elsewhere, many very effective programs to feed starving children, and a growing movement for environmental stewardship. Moreover, the writer furthers the Straw Man by ascribing positions to a group whom he/she identifies, but whom do not self identify. For example, I suspect that most Lutherans would be shocked to be smeared as Christian Right. The discussions of yesterday clearly point to the fact that "Christian Right" is usually used as a pejorative term and the writer uses it as such. While the previous edit was clearly flawed in in its own way, remedies were under discussion. The writer should post a draft for discussion here before posting to the article. A serious flaw in the rewrite is that it suggests that a preponderance of scholars support the Straw Man which follows, but cites no sources. The new edit constitutes a serious retrogression. TheModerate 15:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias

The most recent the writer (March 3, 2007) uses the article to take a biased position in the Culture War by ascribing only certain politically sensitive Culture War positions to her/his straw man Christian Right. It leaves out others like opposition to the modern traffic in sex slaves, and genocide in Darfur and elsewhere, programs to feed starving children, and a growing movement for environmental stewardship. Moreover, the writer furthers the straw man by ascribing positions to a group whom he/she identifies, but whom do not self identify. For example, I suspect that most Lutherans would be shocked to be smeared as Christian Right. The discussions of yesterday clearly point to the fact that "Christian Right" is usually used as a pejorative term and the writer uses it as such. While the previous edit was clearly flawed in in its own way, remedies were under discussion. The writer should post a draft for discussion here before posting to the article. Another serious flaw (weasel words) in the rewrite is that it suggests that a preponderance of scholars support the straw man which follows, but it cites no sources to support this implication. The new edit is highly biased and constitutes a serious retrogression. I am posting a copy of the March 3, 2007 version to use as a basis for a concensus article. TheModerate 15:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

{{weasel}} {{bias}} {{original research}} {{christianity}}

The Christian right is a term used by scholars and journalists to refer to a spectrum of right-wing Christian political and social movements and organizations characterized by their strong support of conservative social and political values.

"scholars and journalists"? Which ones? This paragraph pretends that an army of anonomyous and unbiaed scholars are behind the writer. As written this is weasel words. TheModerate 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, the usage is effectively so universal that a list would be pointless. True, the distinction between "christian right" and "religious right" tends to be made more by the left; however, that distinction is explained within the article. Five minutes of searching turns up current usage for "religious right" by right-leaning news sources such as the Washington Times and The American Spectator, and on the left such as the Daily Kos. Use of "religious right" dates back to at least such prominent respected figures as Barry Goldwater in the '80s. No, he's neither scholar nor journalist... but such would certainly start using it once he did.

Let me turn your question around: Which "scholars and journalists" reject the use of the term? Abb3w 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

While the term is in common use, it is improper to turn the question around. If you read the message under the wikipedia editing window you will see: "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." The burden of proof is on the article writer; and properly so. The feeble protestation that the usage is "...effectively so universal that a list would be pointless." is content free, and expresses only the personal bias of the writer. TheModerate 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are making it difficult to remain civil. Google Scholar currently lists over four thousand uses of the term, and is hardly comprehensive; from a fast scan, the phrase is used by Wilcox, Diamond, Green, Herek, possibly Herman.

Non-existance of a counterexample implies universality; I am challenging you to provide a simple existential instantiation of a contrary position. Abb3w 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Listing some people who have used it is a start. Giving more specific cites of particular books, articles, or public presentations will be the next step. This kind of writing is labor intensive and brings one into contact with the fact many of our opinions are just that. As such they are unsuitable to an encyclopedia article. Being civil is entirely different from being agreeable, and a good civil and logical argument can be productive. As to your last point, the real issue is: how many of your sources agree on the meaning of this term? Possibly, there are as many definitions as expositors. Did Barry Goldwater mean the same thing that is meant in the book: "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America"? You suggest that they used the same phrase (although you provide no Goldwater citation). But did they refer to the same people, or even the same kinds of people? Do they discuss the same issues? Does that help clarify the problems with your argument? TheModerate 20:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, there are as many definitions as expositors is an unsubstantiated position using weasel words, possibly original research to boot; sauce for the gander. And, speaking of logic, you have still failed to demonstrate basic existential instantiation; I have. From where I sit, your position is looking less like constructive criticism and more like a troll; you have not provided a single source of your own. Back it and cite it, or drop it.

I absoCENSOREDlutely refuse to go through the nine thousand Google scholar cites (counting both "Christian right" and "Religious right") to categorize them all. You compained that there were none; I repeat my assertion that the usage is too widespread to be worth citing individually. If you wish to begin sorting through them all, Be Bold and do it yourself.

FWIW, one of the more popular of the Goldwater quotes on the RR was "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country." There are others, but that one's pretty sweeping. Abb3w 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Goldwater quote you found is good one, but it will be necessary to know when he said it and who reported it to use it. When Goldwater mentioned the Religious Right is this the same as the Christian Right? That would improperly exclude a substantial faction of the Neocon community. It seems the term Religious Right than Christian Right would be more inclusive, as has already been discussed on these pages. This kind of imprecision is exactly the point I and others in the discussion pages are making. The present article lumps many diverse and sometimes opposing factions together, with a fine disregard for scholarship or definition of terms. It also includes by broad strokes many people who would be uncomfortable with this vitriolic label. You really need to understand that Christian Right is frequently used as a defamatory term for all manner of political foes of many people who employ it. Care must be employed in writing up such defamatory words, as the N-word, mean spirited epithets for the Jewish community, Hispanics, or even the dreaded Liberal. It really is a lot work to produce quality writing on such a controversial subject and it will require reading, summarization, and careful citations of the material upon which it is based. I am willing to work with you on this, and I think that Irene Ringworm is also doing research that will be interesting and useful. Meanwhile, I am going back to summarization of examples of bias. Until a lot of work is put into it, the present edit remains weasel worded and biased. Talk to you later. TheModerate 23:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Christian Right" as a social movement includes individuals from a wide variety of theological beliefs, ranging from moderately traditional movements within Lutheranism and Catholicism to theologically more conservative movements such as Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and Fundamentalist Christianity.

The New York Times, "Evangelical’s Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right" March 3, 2007 Laurie Goodstein, explicitly excluded the Evangelical movement from its often used designation of Christian Right. The NYT editors seem to be one of the major reliable sources on this. This paragraph lacks attribution to any reliable source. TheModerate 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Now here you have some substance to your objection. Abb3w

Here and everywhere. The inconvient truth is that the burden of proof is, and remains, on the article and its writer, no matter how much he/she wishes it were not so.

The same NYT article continues with: "The letter, dated Thursday, is signed by leaders like James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; Gary L. Bauer, once a Republican presidential candidate and now president of Coalitions for America; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; and Paul Weyrich, a longtime political strategist who is chairman of American Values." This might offer a canonical set of American "Christian Right" people to consider, with a (necessary) citation from a "reliable source" to move it out of weasel words category. TheModerate 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The disagreements between the Christian right and feminist, gay and social liberal activists are sometimes called the Culture War.

The terms Christian Right and Religious Right are sometimes used interchangeably, although this is problematic. Fundamentalists across several religions often share with the Christian Right certain positions on specific issues such as opposition to women's and gay rights, separation of religion and government, and opposition to changing moral standards. So while many leaders of the Christian Right are outspoken critics of radical Islam, organizations composed of conservative Christians, Muslim social conservatives, and Orthodox Jews sometimes cooperate in national and international projects, especially through the World Congress of Families and United Nations NGO gatherings (Butler, 2006).

Please provide a complete cite to (Butler, 2006) for the interested reader. TheModerate 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably the same as in Religious Right article, which cites "Butler, Jennifer S. 2006. Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized. London: Pluto Press." Fixed in the article. Abb3w

This paragraph takes a biased position in the Culture War by ascribing only politically sensitive Culture War positions to her/his strawman Christian Right. It leaves out other positions like opposition to sex slave trafficing, genocide in Darfur and elsewhere, programs to feed starving children, and environmental stewardship. Though I noted above that the NYT now differentiates the Evangelicals involved in the environmental stewardship movement from its definition of the Christian Right. Some of the other positions I have listed are also heavily supported by Evangelicals. Pat Robertson's 700 club does news stories on these issues often. Is Robertson to be classified as Christian Right or Evangelical? TheModerate 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian Right - a suggestion

I think that the term is sloppy enough for the USA without attempting to define it for the entire world. I think the idea of listing political positions is an excellent beginning, since it is attempts to give specific meanings to the term, and help others understand what might be meant by it.

The approach you are suggesting is based on opinion. Wikipedia is not an editorial page. Such subjective commentary is fine for these discussion pages, but does not really belong in the article. TheModerate 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr TheModerate, I was not suggesting a change to the article; I was commending what I already find there. The paragraph ISSUES is an attempt at a definition of what positions constitute the core of whatever the "Religious Right" is. The issue becomes, is this list "correct". (From my point of view, the term is fatally flawed, but the term is used, so why not attempt to understand what, if anything, it means, or impies, or assumes, or the premises that it rests on.-- Martin | talk • contribs 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The next effort should be to find the term used with those meanings "in the wild".

Then try to distinguish between the essential meanings and the peripheral meanings, as grouped by those who self-identify as the Christian Right, if any people do.

Interestingly, no instances of self-identification were found. Please join in on the Language of Bias discussion below.

If it is used pejoratively, then explain what the objection is.

A few gems: 12.) "Adams saw in the Christian right, long before we did, disturbing similarities with the German Christian Church and the Nazi Party...", "The Christian right's big mullahs make it plain..." ,"...to pay homage to the pseudo-science and quackery of the Christian right.", "The radical Christian right, calling for a “Christian state”—where whole segments of American society, from gays and lesbians to liberals to immigrants to artists to intellectuals, will have no legitimacy and be reduced, at best, to second-class citizens.","Many of the "Christian Right" (of which they are neither) unable to understand why the Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion on the planet, are jubilant that someone is slaughtering them.". There are many more where that came from. See The Language of Bias below. TheModerate 13:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My own belief is that there is a Christian position on many issues in the public sector, and that these positions are sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left. The notion of the Christian Right, meaning "Christians who vote Republican", is only due to the importance of abortion as an issue. (There is no question that a county is able to pass immoral laws whenever it wants to, and even that it may be prudent from the country's point of view to do so: it is better that one perish than that many.) -- Martin | talk • contribs 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. There is a Christian Left, and a Christian Center, too. TheModerate 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Language of Bias - A sample of descriptions of the Christian Right found in google news

I had a discussion with Irene Ringworm about ten days ago and we both raked the net using google news, taking the first fifty hits. For Irene's results see the "bias" section. I promised to post details of the results at that time. They corroborate Irene's brief analysis. Google news top fifty hits for Christian Right, Saturday 10:59 a.m. March 3, 2007. I can post the sources if the community wants more details.

Some points are evident about this sample of sixty-two uses of the phrase "christian right":

0 cases of self identification as "Christian right".

11 editorial: descriptions or declarations.

24 contentious: uses that construct rhetorical a straw man.

16 pejorative: uses involving some degree of name calling.

11 defamatory: uses suggesting Nazi, genocidal, or other such tendencies.

Simply put: the majority of common uses of the term "Christian Right" (51/62 or approximatly 82 percent below) seem to involve contentious positions, name calling, or fear mongering.

The previous edit, which introduced the term as "often pejorative" was in error. The phrase could be "this term is politically charged, and is usually contentious, pejorative, or sometimes even defamatory in common usage." Accordingly, care must be taken in the use of this term, and the article should caution the reader about these usage patterns.

I invite people to look the classifications below over and discuss them.

1.) "Evangelical’s Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right" [contentious]

2.) "...it seems as though the Christian Right is determined to have the lock on Wilberforce's legacy..." [contentious]

3.) "...the Christian Right is having a difficult time finding a suitable presidential candidate for 2008." [editorial]

4.)"...the Christian right's anxiety is interesting, because that faction was a kingmaker in Bush's 2000 Republican nomination." [contentious]

5.) "Some Former Backsliders Try to Please the Christian Right" [pejorative]

6.) "The Christian right's big mullahs make it plain They're still not comfortable with John McCain." [pejorative]

7.) "The combat against the homophobic propaganda of the Christian right got a significant new weapon added to its arsenal this week..." [pejorative]

8.) "Christian right groups like Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family regularly twist, distort, and misuse for anti-gay purposes..." [pejorative]

9.) "...my parents bought me a Christian right tape called 'Gay and Unhappy'..." [pejorative]

10.)"...as I worked on American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America were stories of this failure... [defamatory]

11.) "The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic..." [defamatory]

12.) "Adams saw in the Christian right, long before we did, disturbing similarities with the German Christian Church and the Nazi Party..." [defamatory]

13.) "Two decades later, even in the face of the growing reach of the Christian right, his prediction seems apocalyptic." [contentious]

14. ) "And yet the powerbrokers in the Christian right have moved from the fringes of society to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate." [contentious]

15.) Forty-five senators and 186 members of the House before the last elections earned approval ratings of 80 to 100 percent from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups—the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. [editorial].

16.) "President Bush has handed hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid to these groups and dismantled federal programs in science, reproductive rights and AIDS research to pay homage to the pseudo-science and quackery of the Christian right." [defamatory]

17.) "The radical Christian right, calling for a “Christian state”—where whole segments of American society, from gays and lesbians to liberals to immigrants to artists to intellectuals, will have no legitimacy and be reduced, at best, to second-class citizens." [defamatory]

18.) "Wii On Porn: Christian Right Foams At Mouth" [defamatory]

19.) "Many of the "Christian Right" (of which they are neither) unable to understand why the Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion on the planet, are jubilant that someone is slaughtering them." [defamatory]

20.) "Has it never occurred too them that if the God the "Christian Right" pretends to worship, wants certain people dead, He which designed and engineered the Universe, is certainly capable of killing whomever, he desires, without any help from puny humans?" [pejorative]

21.) "The "Christian Right" at the same time, worships, the Anti-Christ Bushites..." [contentious]

22.) "The Hypocritical Christian Right is being “Left Behind”" [pejorative]

23.) "Funny how the many Christian Right web sites never mention these incidents. Perhaps that’s because they’re too busy finding new ways to demean gay people and their families." [defamatory]

24.) "America should not strive to be the hate-based, “us vs. them” theocratic state Dobson and the rest of the leaders of the Christian Right want it to be..." [defamatory]

25.) "The crumbling Christian Right and their political star chamber were the subject of a New York Times article titled “Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate” [pejorative]

26.) "The Christian Right – particularly Don Wildmon and his American Family Association – was attacking Wal-Mart because the company offered books such as Gay Marriage, Real Life: Ten Stories of Love and Family on its website." [contentious]

27.) "The radical Christian Right screams loudly whenever a video game includes violence." [contentious]

28.) "Is it coincidental that this jump coincided with the Christian Right’s cranking up its anti-gay rhetoric?" [contentious]

29.) "May the crumbling of the hypocritical Christian Right and its decaying political power continue unabated, and may they be joyfully left behind as America moves toward greater separation of church and state, and the affirmation of civil equality for all citizens. Amen." [pejorative]

30.) "Here's a deal for the Christian right, a way for our two "sides" to get a major part of what we seek to make a better society." [editorial]

31.) "Wilberforce Be With You: The Christian Right Claims Amazing Grace" [contentious]

32.) "But Wilberforce's unlikely victory is also viewed as a metaphor for the Christian right's struggle to remake the culture." [contentious]

33.) "The White Evangelical Christian right, which accounted for about 24 percent of the vote in the ’06 midterm elections, is well known as the biggest, most organized stumbling block to LGBT rights on the national level." [pejorative]

34.) "The Conservative Party is the Christian right in New York." [contentious]

35.) "For the Christian Right, an uninspiring bunch of candidates?" Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate" [editorial]

36.) "The Christian Right has long had power and influence well beyond their actual numbers." [contentious]

37.) "But the Christian Right is not necessarily right or Christian, in my view." [contentious]

38.) "None of the top tier Republican candidates (and who is to say that any of them will be candidates a year from now, anyway?) represent the Christian Right." [editorial]

39.) Christian Right: Do Democrats Really Understanding [sic.] Christian Values. [contentious]

40.) This article is written as a response to Jim Wallace, who recently wrote article on Time and CNN website “The Religious Right's Era Is Over”. [editorial]

41. "This is his high-water mark," predicted Paul Weyrich, the chairman of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation and one of the founding fathers of the Christian right movement." [editorial]

42. "The Brownback Report: Brownback makes his case to the Christian right" [editorial]

43.) "SLIM PICKINGS FOR CHRISTIAN RIGHT" [editorial]

44.) "Christian Right Has U.N. In Sight: A Review of “Undoing Reproductive Freedom: Christian Right NGOs Target The United Nations”" [contentious]

45.) "“If the United States continues to provide a platform for the Christian Right at international meetings,”" [contentious]

46.) "on the Christian Right's anti-abortion, anti-contraception campaign at the UN." [contentious]

47.) "...a report published late last year by Pam Chamberlain of Political Research Associates, on the Christian Right's anti-abortion, anti-contraception campaign at the UN." [contentious]

48.) "The Christian Right increasingly seeks to restrict women's reproductive rights internationally..." [contentious]

49.) "A small group of U.S. Christian Right organizations has inserted itself in the international arena in four major ways." [contentious]

50.) "...and author of Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized." [contentious]

51.) "These groups tout their behavior as successes through the media outlets of the Christian Right, providing some fuel for the antiabortion and "pro-family" passions at home." [contentious]

52.) "I think, deep down the "Christian Right" (which is neither, and I think they know that) knows that God would not favor ethnic or religious, genocide, and that makes them even more nervous." [pejorative]

53.) "...and the "Christian Right" (which are neither Christian or Right) once again into voting Red." [pejorative]

54.) "Now the "Christian Right" can feel very confident that the illusion of religious and ethnic genocide against the hated Muslims is a reality,..." [defamatory]

55.) "Chris Hedges on “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America”" [defamatory]

56.) "Thank you, Christian right, for calling me liberal" [contentious]

57. "Does that mean the conservative Christian right believes Jesus is evil?" [pejorative]

58. "And does the conservative Christian right look down with disgust at our Founding Fathers?" [pejorative]

59.) "I can only say I thank you, Jesus thanks you, and we’re both ashamed of you, but we also love you, Christian Right." [pejorative]

60.) "...is probably the most visible ally of the Christian Right." [editorial]

61.) "Senator Sam Brownback, a candidate popular with the Christian right,..." [editorial]

62.) "...a federal court in Massachusetts that has the Christian right sputtering and blubbering like a small child on a cross country road trip." [pejorative]

TheModerate 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks good. I vote that we add "pejorative" usage back to the introduction. Irene Ringworm 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Sources and longer Excerpts -------------

The following is a list of sources for the short excerpts above. I chose to extract only sentences or fragments with the phrase "Christian Right" in them. This method has the drawback that a few highly relevant articles were excluded, but some boundary had to be drawn. The list below was screen scraped from a Google search and so unavoidably has a raw quality to it. An increasing number of the links provided will become 404 errors as time passes. The longer excerpts preserved below are intended to provide the interested reader with enough context to understand the sense in which the target phrase is used. My rough and ready classification of the excerpts as Editorial, Pejorative, and Defamatory are subject to interpretation, and I will be happy to discuss the cases and adjust the counts accordingly. This part my effort to bring more sources, and some much needed objectivity into the article.

Much of present article amounts to a poorly written opinion piece, and some of the current authors seem to have been swayed by the fear mongering that surrounds this phrase. Particularly, the wily nilly identification of many individuals who do not self-identify as "Christian Right" without citing credible sources risks using Wikipedia as a means of promulgating what could be viewed by some of the named individuals as personal libel, or defamation.

An encyclopedia article should not be dominated by such fears and personal opinions. We can and should do better. Bringing more reliable sources is certainly a step in that direction. TheModerate 13:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1. New York Times March 3, 2007 Evangelical’s Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/03evangelical.html

Leaders of several conservative Christian groups have sent a letter urging the National Association of Evangelicals to force its policy director in Washington to stop speaking out on global warming. The letter, dated Thursday, is signed by leaders like James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; Gary L. Bauer, once a Republican presidential candidate and now president of Coalitions for America; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; and Paul Weyrich, a longtime political strategist who is chairman of American Values.

2. Political Cortex 2007/3/3 http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/3/3/14016/36037

Kathryn Joyce asesses the religious right's plans to coopt the forthcoming film about abolitionist William Wilberforce, especially in their efforts to link the abolitionist movement with their campaign against abortion rights for women. Though the movie may be documenting a noble cause and man with whom all sides of today's culture war may wish to align themselves, or strive to emulate, it seems as though the Christian Right is determined to have the lock on Wilberforce's legacy...

3. The Daily Astorian 3/2/2007 12:22:00 PM Editor's Notebook: Mr. or Ms. Right isn't running By STEVE FORRESTER

At the opposite end of the political spectrum, The New York Times reported last Sunday that the Christian Right is having a difficult time finding a suitable presidential candidate for 2008. Also recently, African American commentators argued whether Obama was black enough or whether he was really an African American.

In the quest for a winning candidate, the Christian right's anxiety is interesting, because that faction was a kingmaker in Bush's 2000 Republican nomination. David D. Kirkpatrick of the Times reported last Sunday that the secretive Council for National Policy emerged unsatisfied from its February meetings with prospective GOP presidential candidates. Kirkpatrick reported that members "were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election."

4. The Nation DEADLINE POET | posted March 1, 2007 (March 19, 2007 issue) Some Former Backsliders Try to Please the Christian Right CALVIN TRILLIN http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070319&s=trillin

Although he mortified himself, it's true, By showing up at Falwell's Wack Job U, And says that every effort should be made To guarantee reversing Roe v. Wade, The Christian right's big mullahs make it plain They're still not comfortable with John McCain. And Giuliani's heel is like Achilles'; Revolving fillies give the right the willies. His other heel is pretty much the same, Since bashing gays was never Rudy's game. But now he hates abortion. From the start, He was, he says, opposed--deep in his heart.

5. Gay City News Battling the Right's Distortion By: DOUG IRELAND 03/01/2007 http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18025411&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6

The combat against the homophobic propaganda of the Christian right got a significant new weapon added to its arsenal this week with the unveiling of a new, multi-media Web site.

Baptized RespectMyResearch.org, the site is designed to help academics fight the perversion of their social science and medical research on homosexuality, which Christian right groups like Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family regularly twist, distort, and misuse for anti-gay purposes never intended by legitimate researchers.

"When I came out at 18," he said, "my parents bought me a Christian right tape called 'Gay and Unhappy,' a subliminal, self-hypnotic tape designed to get me out of homosexuality. 6. PopMatters The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy 2 March 2007 by Chris Hedges http://www.popmatters.com/pm/features/article/11062/the-rise-of-christian-fascism-and-its-threat-to-american-democracy/

The stories that many in this movement told me over the past two years as I worked on American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America were stories of this failure --personal, communal and often economic. This despair, Adams said, would empower dangerous dreamers—those who today bombard the airwaves with an idealistic and religious utopianism that promises, through violent apocalyptic purification, to eradicate the old, sinful world that has failed many Americans.

The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic—to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them.

Adams saw in the Christian right, long before we did, disturbing similarities with the German Christian Church and the Nazi Party, similarities that he said would, in the event of prolonged social instability or a national crisis, see American fascists rise under the guise of religion to dismantle the open society. He despaired of US liberals, who, he said, as in Nazi Germany, mouthed silly platitudes about dialogue and inclusiveness that made them ineffectual and impotent. Liberals, he said, did not understand the power and allure of evil or the cold reality of how the world worked.

Two decades later, even in the face of the growing reach of the Christian right, his prediction seems apocalyptic. And yet the powerbrokers in the Christian right have moved from the fringes of society to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the House before the last elections earned approval ratings of 80 to 100 percent from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups—the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. President Bush has handed hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid to these groups and dismantled federal programs in science, reproductive rights and AIDS research to pay homage to the pseudo-science and quackery of the Christian right.

The radical Christian right, calling for a “Christian state”—where whole segments of American society, from gays and lesbians to liberals to immigrants to artists to intellectuals, will have no legitimacy and be reduced, at best, to second-class citizens—awaits a crisis, an economic meltdown, another catastrophic terrorist strike or a series of environmental disasters. A period of instability will permit them to push through their radical agenda, one that will be sold to a frightened American public as a return to security and law and order, as well as moral purity and prosperity.

7. Spong http://news.spong.com/article/11924?cb=787 Wii On Porn: Christian Right Foams At Mouth

8. OpEdNews.com March 2, 2007 at 21:10:34 http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_professo_070226_why_i_vehemently_2c_an.htm

Why I No Longer Support Impeachment by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo Many of the "Christian Right" (of which they are neither) unable to understand why the Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion on the planet, are jubilant that someone is slaughtering them. Attrition, they hope will reduce the Muslim lead in the Organized Religion Population of Membership League. Has it never occurred too them that if the God the "Christian Right" pretends to worship, wants certain people dead, He which designed and engineered the Universe, is certainly capable of killing whomever, he desires, without any help from puny humans? The "Christian Right" at the same time, worships, the Anti-Christ Bushites, because the Bushites are ordering others to do what they and their supporters are too dis-attached, uninvolved, frightened to do, but glory in.

9. Atlantic Free Press The Hypocritical Christian Right is being “Left Behind” Tuesday, 27 February 2007 by Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D. http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1056/32/

Funny how the many Christian Right web sites never mention these incidents. Perhaps that’s because they’re too busy finding new ways to demean gay people and their families. And no one is better at that than James Dobson. His sorely misnamed organization, “Focus on the Family,” does everything it can to demean, denigrate, and further marginalize gay and lesbian families. That he will go to ridiculous lengths to do so was demonstrated in his 2004 book Marriage Under Fire in which he claimed that allowing gay and lesbian couples – many of whom are already rearing children – to marry would bring about the end of the world: “the world may soon become ‘as it was in the days of Noah.’” (For a complete debunking of Dobson’s arguments, see “Out of Focus on the Family: A Response to Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage,” Popular Culture Review, 16:1 [February 2005], 45-75.)

But stopping government “funding of religion” is absolutely essential. America should not strive to be the hate-based, “us vs. them” theocratic state Dobson and the rest of the leaders of the Christian Right want it to be:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good… Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism. – Randall Terry The crumbling Christian Right and their political star chamber were the subject of a New York Times article titled “Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate”:

A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

Wal-Mart was one of the retailers carrying Left Behind: Eternal Forces. During the 2006 holiday shopping season the company was under fire, but not for selling a game that taught young teens to hate and kill. Nope. The Christian Right – particularly Don Wildmon and his American Family Association – was attacking Wal-Mart because the company offered books such as Gay Marriage, Real Life: Ten Stories of Love and Family on its website.

The radical Christian Right screams loudly whenever a video game includes violence. Yet they seem to have absolutely no problem with a game that teaches teens to kill in the name of “God,” as long as it’s their politicized, bloodthirsty version of “God.” They share that “thinking” with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

A recent Gallup Poll reported in USA Today documented the trend. Under the heading “Percentage who consider homosexuality acceptable” two results were listed, first by year and then by age group. In 1982, the percentage of those who considered homosexuality acceptable was 34 percent. The percentage had grown to 54 percent by 2006, with the largest increase occurring between 1997 (forty-two percent) to 2002 (fifty-one percent). Is it coincidental that this jump coincided with the Christian Right’s cranking up its anti-gay rhetoric?

May the crumbling of the hypocritical Christian Right and its decaying political power continue unabated, and may they be joyfully left behind as America moves toward greater separation of church and state, and the affirmation of civil equality for all citizens. Amen.

10. Blue Oregon http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/02/testing_beliefs.html

Testing beliefs: A deal for the religious right T.A. Barnhart Here's a deal for the Christian right, a way for our two "sides" to get a major part of what we seek to make a better society. We both believe we are acting ethically, on the basis of deeply held morals. How about we find a way to demonstrate how true this is?

11. Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/riff_blog/archives/2007/02/3651_wilberforce_be.html

Wilberforce Be With You: The Christian Right Claims Amazing Grace

But nowhere is the film more highly anticipated than among conservative Christians, who see parallels between Wilberforce's moral battle and their faith-based campaign against sex trafficking. But Wilberforce's unlikely victory is also viewed as a metaphor for the Christian right's struggle to remake the culture. Presidential hopeful Sam Brownback was dubbed a "Wilberforce Republican" by the Economist, and has eagerly accepted the title.

12. The New York Blade The Fight on the Right The True Foes of Same-sex Equality: New York’s Conservative Party By KERRY ELEVELD Friday, March 02, 2007 http://www.newyorkblade.com/2007/3-2/news/localnews/fightright.cfm

The White Evangelical Christian right, which accounted for about 24 percent of the vote in the ’06 midterm elections, is well known as the biggest, most organized stumbling block to LGBT rights on the national level. But what’s the biggest hurdle here in New York? “The Conservative Party,” said David Verchere, president of the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR). “The Conservative Party is the Christian right in New York. They’ve just conveniently organized themselves into a separate party.”

13. Sydney Morning Herald*

Wikipedia foes set up site to set the people right Bobbie Johnson March 3, 2007 http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/02/1172338880787.html

IT has been attacked many times in its short life, most notably by a former aide to the late Robert Kennedy and the editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica. But now the online reference site Wikipedia has a new foe: evangelical Christians.

"I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," said Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."

The arrival of Conservapedia has been met with derision by much of the internet community. But Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, said he was not upset by the right-wing site's claims: "Free culture knows no bounds."

• seems to be a google error. No explicit use of the phrase "christian right" is to be found on this highly relevant page.

14. Blue Bayou reader blog for Houston Chronicle, TX - Feb. 2007 February 26, 2007 For the Christian Right, an uninspiring bunch of candidates? http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2007/02/for_the_christian_right_an_uni.html

"The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign."

NYT February 25, 2007 Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn. The Christian Right has long had power and influence well beyond their actual numbers. They've had that power because they were well organized and effective - and because they succeeded in demonizing anyone who disagreed with them - as in "How dare you criticize God - or those of us who speak for him (or her)? But the Christian Right is not necessarily right or Christian, in my view. None of the top tier Republican candidates (and who is to say that any of them will be candidates a year from now, anyway?) represent the Christian Right. Dobson, Rev. TinkieWinkie, Gary Bauer, et al basically have no candidate because most Americans have rejected their authoritarianism and their bigotry. Thank God.

15. HULIQ, NC. Christian Right: Do Democrats Really Understanding [sic.] Christian Values. http://www.huliq.com/12591/christian-right-do-democrats-really-understanding-christian-values

Some would like to see Christians as weak and without values. Churches always supported charity and were open to the rest of the world, but do not expect Christians to evolve into faceless “social club” This article is written as a response to Jim Wallace, who recently wrote article on Time and CNN website “The Religious Right's Era Is Over”. Jim says that traveling all around country people cheering “The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun."

16. Inside Bay Area* Skillet cooks up the right recipe for mainstream success By Roman Gokhman, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 03/02/2007 09:46:15 AM PST http://origin.insidebayarea.com/music/ci_5338829

SIZZLIN' SKILLET: John Cooper (center) has brought Skillet from a Christian music focus to a more mainstream audience. The group's single "Saviour" landed at No. 26 on Billboard's mainstream rock chart. GROWING UP in a traditional Southern Christian home, John Cooper was raised on church hymns. He wasn't allowed to listen to rock'n' roll — even Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith. Anything with a drum beat was forbidden. But when Cooper was with his friends, he soaked up everything from Metallica, Iron Maiden and Motley Crue to Christian rockers such as Petra and Guardian. Cooper, 31, combined his faith and tastes in music when he and two friends started Skillet. Over the last decade, the lead vocalist and bassist guided the band to its position as one of the most successful Christian hard rock bands. Skillet is now on the cusp of the mainstream success enjoyed by Christian crossovers P.O.D., Switchfoot and Chevelle.

• seems to be a google error. No explicit use of the phrase "christian right" is to be found on this highly relevant page.

17. Sacabee.com (related to the Sacremento Bee California newspaper) Analysis: High-flying Giuliani woos conservatives Polls show him the top GOP candidate, but critics on right say balloon will burst. By William Douglas - Mcclatchy Washington Bureau Last Updated 12:48 am PST Saturday, March 3, 2007 Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A8 http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/131931.html

For a thrice-married, pro-abortion rights, gun-control-supporting, immigration-loving former New York City mayor who supposedly can't win the confidence of Christian conservatives, let alone the Republican presidential nomination, Rudy Giuliani is sitting pretty now. "This is his high-water mark," predicted Paul Weyrich, the chairman of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation and one of the founding fathers of the Christian right movement. "Once the discussion goes around the country about what he stands for -- he's big on the promotion of gay marriage -- he'll have a hard time getting beyond where he is now." (In fact, Giuliani opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions.)

18. De Soto Explorer online The Brownback Report: Brownback makes his case to the Christian right Compiled by the Explorer news sources MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007

references The New York Times: Christian Right labors to find '08 candidate: http://www.desotoexplorer.com/section/breaking_news/story/7475

19. Truth Dig (blog) SLIM PICKINGS FOR CHRISTIAN RIGHT Posted on Feb 25, 2007 The Rev. Jerry Falwell held a hush-hush summit earlier this month with other conservative Republicans from the Council for National Policy to discuss the 2008 presidential race. The exclusive group is facing a status downgrade when the Bush years end and can’t find anyone in the lineup of candidates who clearly fits the council’s bill. Cites: NYT February 25, 2007 Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070225_slim_pickings_for_christian_right/

Irene, I am also working through the top fifty. What I find is broadly compatible with your results. I am also compiling each sentence which uses the phrase "Christian Right". Some interesting patterns are emerging. I will get back to you when I have compiled some numbers. A clear point is that Christian Right is a phrase often used by some to describe others. Interestingly, the most often cited source using the term is the New York Times. A small set of individuals is repeatedly identified as "christian right", usually by opponents. I think we can actually do a good piece of work here with some statistical analysis of categories and some good foot notes that will allow readers to understand the process we used. I will upload results of this analysis for discussion when I get it done, we can then decide how to rewrite the introductory paragraph. I think we should also be careful to avoid asserting that particular individuals are part of this group. Citations, particularly if they are often repeated, should be used. That way the reader will be able to vet the assertions using the sources. I think there may be libel issues to consider, if some consider this label to be defamatory.

20. Guardian Unlimited, UK Facing phobias Recent events in eastern Europe dispel Islamophobic rhetoric that it is just Islam that threatens gay and lesbian rights. Ken Livingstone

March 2, 2007 12:15

This reactionary wave has to be opposed on its own terms. It is a European problem, not one imported by "alien," "un-European" or "jihadist" elements. It arises from and is led by traditional right wing European forces. Similarly in the United States it is the Christian right that continues to lead the fight against lesbian and gay equality - as the comments of televangelist Jerry Falwell quoted in the Guardian Diary today and blaming September 11 on "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays" confirm.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ken_livingstone/2007/03/eastern_menace.html

21. Burbank Leader, CA*

IN THEORY: A non-issue, or a basic right The Department of Justice has reportedly started the First Freedom Project to focus on protecting religious freedoms. http://www.burbankleader.com/articles/2007/03/03/religion/blr-intheory03.txt 22. HeraldTribune.com

Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070225/ZNYT02/702250924/1006/SPORTS

23. Truth Dig. Repeat link to 19.

24. Thousand Oaks Acorn* Girls soccer game at Oaks Christian School.

25. PopMatters

Giuliani emerges as GOP’s front runner by William Douglas McClatchy Newspapers 3 March 2007

“This is his high-water mark,” predicted Paul Weyrich, the chairman of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation and one of the founding fathers of the Christian right movement. “Once the discussion goes around the country about what he stands for - he’s big on the promotion of gay marriage - he’ll have a hard time getting beyond where he is now.” (In fact, Giuliani opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions.)

26. vdare blog* http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/02/john-leo-on-race-and-the-right-to-know/

27. Third upset not in cards for Aurora Christian*

28. The Indypendent (NYC) Christian Right Has U.N. In Sight: A Review of “Undoing Reproductive Freedom: Christian Right NGOs Target The United Nations” By Eleanor Bader February 22, 2007

Undoing Reproductive Freedom: Christian Right NGOs Target The United Nations From PublicEye.org By Pam Chamberlain (December 2006) Undoing Reproductive Freedom: Christian Right NGOs Target the United Nations addresses a frightening and increasingly effective trend in anti-woman organizing. Compiled by Political Research Associates (PRA), a Boston-based nonprofit research center that has monitored the religious and secular right wing for 25 years, the report zeroes in on a host of conservative Christian groups that have turned their gaze on international affairs. It all sounds laughable, until you realize that the United Nations provides an international forum for the ramblings of U.S.-based religious conservatives. “If the United States continues to provide a platform for the Christian Right at international meetings,” the PRA report concludes, “then in the next three to eight years we may see the advances made by human rights activists over the past two decades undermined, or at least stalled.” http://www.indypendent.org/?p=835

29. Political Cortex Religious Rightist Blows Smoke, Changes Subject By Frederick Clarkson 02/28/2007 02:58:47 PM EST

"Note the irrationality of the left's rhetoric," wrote Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, a senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America, in a recent column on the rightist Townhall.com. What caught Crouse's ire was a report published late last year by Pam Chamberlain of Political Research Associates, on the Christian Right's anti-abortion, anti-contraception campaign at the UN.

Of course, Chamberlain and PRA do not view international meetings as exclusive or elite; nor do they agree with the Post's long ago, one-time mischaracterization of the members of the Christian right. Crouse's version of rationality does not seem to include the necessity of getting facts right. The word "bizarre" is used in reference to conservative beliefs or actions nowhere in Chamberlain's report. The Christian Right increasingly seeks to restrict women's reproductive rights internationally through its growing number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with consultative status at the United Nations. Believing their power to be enhanced by the election of an anti-choice president in 2000, these anti-choice NGOs have increased their presence at the UN. They oppose UN programs and platforms promoting access to abortion and contraception, and they promote an abstinence-only family planning curriculum worldwide. Using the access to a few official delegations and activities offered by their consultative status, the NGOs pursue their goals by attempting to stonewall the deliberative process of committees, organizing and funding an international caucus composed of other conservative religious entities and governments to mobilize opposition more broadly within the UN. A small group of U.S. Christian Right organizations has inserted itself in the international arena in four major ways. They have created a vocal antiabortion, anti-reproductive health presence at the UN, both by gaining consultative status as NGOs and through Bush administration appointments to official US delegations, special UN meetings, and special sessions. They have succeeded in publicizing their frame that the right to life is a basic human right and that advocates for abortion access and reproductive health are calling for illegitimate, special rights. They have cultivated hostility to the UN among the U.S. "pro-life" community. And they have pressured Bush to overturn Congressional decisions by refusing to fund some international health programs.

Participating in UN activities as a hostile NGO is a "Trojan Horse" strategy, according to Jennifer Butler, former UN liaison for the NGO Presbyterian Church USA and author of Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized. About these conservative NGOs she notes, "By infiltrating the system of an organization they oppose, they hope to stall, influence, and even undermine its work from within." To close observers at the UN... conservative NGOs interfere with the already-prolonged process of consensus building and decision making that is the bulk of the work at UN gatherings worldwide. They are learning to mobilize conservatives from the official delegations of other UN member nations. These groups tout their behavior as successes through the media outlets of the Christian Right, providing some fuel for the antiabortion and "pro-family" passions at home. And they use the forum of the UN to train volunteers whose sometimes large numbers give the impression of powerful organizations. But the work of conservative NGOs at the UN has been primarily to reinforce Bush's anti-abortion and abstinence-only messages in an international arena.... In 2002 she predicted: "If the United States continues to provide a platform for the Christian Right at international meetings, then in the next three to eight years we may see the advances made by human rights activists over the past two decades undermined, or at least stalled." No wonder Janice Shaw Crouse is blowing smoke and changing the subject.

30. OpEdNews.com March 1, 2007 at 09:11:21 A BUSH WORLD WAR LOOMING! by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo

There is more, however. In Bush's latest speeches, his language is apocalyptic and biblical, sounding right out the Left Behind/Rapture fiction, which so many "Christians" apparently accept as Sacred Writ. He is making his case to win them over after some mild rifting, by making war upon another segment of the fastest growing religion on the planet, Muslimism. It was growing fast before the attack on Iraq and since it has been growing faster. Some groups want that growth stopped, is makes them nervous, and shakes their so easily shaken "faith." I don't know about them, but nothing has ever shaken the faith of true believers. I think, deep down the "Christian Right" (which is neither, and I think they know that) knows that God would not favor ethnic or religious, genocide, and that makes them even more nervous. He wants the war in full bloom for the 2008 election, so he can bamboozle the easily frightened, the drooling, slack-jawed and the clueless, and the "Christian Right" (which are neither Christian or Right) once again into voting Red. Now the "Christian Right" can feel very confident that the illusion of religious and ethnic genocide against the hated Muslims is a reality, some might even enlist, something many of those though flag wavers and bible thumpers, have assiduously avoided. They don't like the idea of people to which they have not been formally introduced, trying to blow them apart or shoot them. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_professo_070225_a_bushite_world_war_.htm

31. http://www.bosnewslife.com/news/2825-news-alert-cuba-christian-activist-biscet-tru*

32. FAITH UNDER FIRE* Uniformed Navy chaplain prays 'in Jesus' name' Act of faithfulness defines career as service ejects Christian http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54537

33. Girls Basketball at Christian School*

34. Salisbury Journal* By turning we come round right

35. chron.com* March 2, 2007, 7:48PM A view on very real divide possible among Anglicans By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.

36. mensdailynews.com*

37. Midland Christian tops Westbury Christian*

38. Angela and Ian Gay endured a four-year legal battle, twice stood trial and spent 15 months in jail before a jury finally believed they did not kill three-year old Christian Blewitt, the little boy they had hoped to adopt.*

39. Thornton's 40 points sink South Christian*

40. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/19/18365550.php

Chris Hedges on “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America”

by Democracy Now (reposted) Monday Feb 19th, 2007 9:17 AM

A new book by Chris Hedges called “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America” investigates the highly organized and well-funded "dominionist movement." The book investigates their agenda, examines the movement's origins and motivations and uncovers its ideological underpinnings. “American Fascists” argues that dominionism seeks absolute power in a Christian state. According to Hedges, the movement bears a strong resemblance to the young fascist movements in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and '30s.

40. TheState.com, South Carolina

Posted on Mon, Feb. 19, 2007

Thank you, Christian right, for calling me liberal They sling about the term “liberal” as if it’s a bad thing. Does that mean the conservative Christian right believes Jesus is evil? After all, Jesus is perhaps the ultimate liberal, one who wished everyone well and taught us to love, cherish and spread peace wherever we go. And by the way, Jesus, his mother and Moses were Jews, not Americans.

And does the conservative Christian right look down with disgust at our Founding Fathers? The same ones who were bold, courageous, proud and, dare I say, liberal enough to question their government, to demand rights of their own, to develop a Constitution that protected us all, and not just the Enron and White House administrations?

Of course, I suppose there will always be those who wish to exclude, be rude and, at times, ridicule. But if they wish to label this open-minded, independent, left-handed, Arab-American, college-educated, born up North, raised-in-the-South writer, artist and musician a liberal, I can only say I thank you, Jesus thanks you, and we’re both ashamed of you, but we also love you, Christian Right. JAWAD P. ASHY Simpsonville

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/16731008.htm

41. Ava Tyler's Book of Inspirational Poetry*

42. TheInquirer.com

Religious right launches rival to 'un-American' Wikipedia Praise The Lord and pass the encyclopaedia By Andrew Thomas: Friday 02 March 2007, 10:29 http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37963

43. Bend Weekly Mar 02,2007 Black voters nix Republicans by Bill Berkowitz These days, Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., of New Hope Christian Church in Maryland and president of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, is probably the most visible ally of the Christian Right. People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch pointed out that "Since joining forces with the far Right -- including membership in the influential Arlington Group -- Jackson has been a frequent spokesman for right-wing causes. He spoke at the 'Justice Sunday: Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith' religious rally in support of Bush's extreme judicial nominees" and 'Justice Sunday II', as well as at the Family Research Council's "Values Voter Summit" this past September. http://www.bendweekly.com/Opinion/3271.html

44. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Dinesh D'Souza takes hits left and right* By Bill Steigerwald TRIBUNE-REVIEW Saturday, March 3, 2007

45. Byron ends Aurora Christian’s impressive run*

46. France 24 Giuliani woos conservatives in 2008 run by Stephen Collinson

Senator Sam Brownback, a candidate popular with the Christian right, but not thought to have great wider appeal, meanwhile offered a clarion call for the role of religious faith in public life.

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=070302192330.njq12y2g&cat=null

47. Northwest Progressive Institute Official Blog*

Friday, February 23, 2007 McCain to meet with religious right leaders today Welcome to pander day. The P-I previews John McCain's big visit to kiss the rings of social conservatives.

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2007/02/mccain-to-meet-with-religious-right.html

48. San Francisco Bay Times King and King May Reign Over Massachusetts Schools By Ann Rostow Published: March 1, 2007

I just read a great opinion out of a federal court in Massachusetts that has the Christian right sputtering and blubbering like a small child on a cross country road trip. At stake was the question of whether Massachusetts public schools had the right to teach young kids about diverse families, specifically gay families, or whether religious parents had the right to be notified prior to any gay friendly discussions so that they could pull their vulnerable offspring out of earshot. http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=6146

50. The Christian Post* Transgender Professor Fights Dismissal from Christian School

By David Eggert Associated Press Writer Fri, Mar. 02 2007 07:01 PM ET

Julie, formerly John, says she gained a lot emotionally after starting to live openly as a woman in recent years - cross-dressing, getting hormone therapy and, a week ago, legally changing her name. But she lost something as well: her job. Spring Arbor University, a small, evangelical Christian school 75 miles west of Detroit, fired the 55-year-old associate professor earlier this week after a 15-month dispute over Nemecek's transgender lifestyle. It previously had decided not to renew Nemecek's contract after the spring semester, citing conduct that's "inconsistent with the Christian faith." An ordained Baptist minister who once led churches in Chicago and Grand Rapids, Nemecek attends church regularly with her wife of 35 years, Joanne. Nemecek is legally a male and doesn't plan to have a sex-change operation, partly to continue the marriage.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070302/26123_Transgender_Professor_Fights_Dismissal_from_Christian_School.htm

History Section

I am starting a bibliography secton below. The references section is a good step, but is not numbered in any way. Perhaps we need some kind of numbering scheme? TheModerate 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Seems like we need to number the references section to allow some form of tracking, as is common in researched papers.

TheModerate 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research v. Published Scholarship

There are hundreds of published scholarly cites that use the term "Christian Right." The research above is most interesting, but it has no merit for rewriting this page. On a page that is contentious, such as this one, the material needs to be cited to reputable published material, not original research written from a clearly biased POV--no matter what side of the issue the researcher is staking out. Please follow Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the summary of the original research posted above. Note to TheModerate, please study the policy guidelines for Wikipedia. See especially the policy on no original research: WP:OR. --Cberlet 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to TheModerate. Please study Wiki policy guidelines and avoid applying the wrong tags.--Cberlet 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, guys! "said to be members" are high Weasel Words. Said by whom? Said why? We need reliable sources for this kind of pejorative imputation. Have any of these people self-identified as "Christian Right"? If not, who are you to nominate them? While personal opinions and discussion are welcome and proper in many a forum, they do not belong here. I think we should remove all personal identifications made without corroboration from reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. TheModerate 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very disrespectful to fail to follow even the most basic policies for editing this page and engaging in discussions. Discussions go at the bottom of the page. Colons are used to indicate a new comment. If you wish to improve the page, llok for reputable published material. If you want to challenge the list, have the common courtesy to find out what the proper tag is.--Cberlet 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool it Chip. You started this by simply deleting the massive amount of work TheModerate did, and substituted your own POV. The actual truth is somewhere between TheModerate's first edit and yours in response.

TheModerate came back with a compromise edit that included your POV. That is certainly respectful and a proper way to edit, and you simply reverted again, which begins to look like you are going to edit war. TheModerate added a massive amount of data to this page in support; some sources are not reputable, some are. But, based on your long expressed position, I doubt that your list of "reputable scholars" is very balanced either. I am restoring TheModerate's compromise edit as the best available one so far. Pollinator 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not a compromise edit. It was clearly WP:OR. If you can find a reputable published source that makes this type of claim, go right ahead and cite it. --Cberlet 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources cited in the Language of Bias and respond. My paragraph is not a compromise edit. It is simple and factual reporting of well documented sources. There is no original research, either, but only a report on existing literature. If you would like, I can substitute a set of quotes from the articles cited, but we both know how inflammatory and biased they are. So I suspect that you would like that even less than the polite, and fully documented, cautionary paragraph that I posted. TheModerate 15:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a point on original research: reading and summarizing existing literature cannot be taken as out of bounds. If it were, we would have to shut down Wikipedia; because that is all that we are legitimately allowed to do. TheModerate 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The People Section

We now need to move on to the People section. As written, it is pure personal POV and completely unsupported. In view of the often defamatory uses of the term Christian Right, I think that personal and unsupported nominations to this category have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia article. If Wikipedia is sued for defamation, that could be the end of a magnificent experiment. Don't think it can't happen. PLEASE help get this article in better shape. As I suggested article number 1 in the Google search

New York Times March 3, 2007 Evangelical’s Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/03evangelical.html

"Leaders of several conservative Christian groups have sent a letter urging the National Association of Evangelicals to force its policy director in Washington to stop speaking out on global warming. ...

The letter, dated Thursday, is signed by leaders like James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; Gary L. Bauer, once a Republican presidential candidate and now president of Coalitions for America; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; and Paul Weyrich, a longtime political strategist who is chairman of American Values."

That would give three people to start with and a respected source for them. I cannot emphasize it strongly enough that any identification of an individual as Christian Right must cite a reliable source. Let THEM get sued. The NYT has a legal staff for just that kind of issue. Do you? TheModerate 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles and Sources

This section is offered as a place for source materials that can foster understanding of people and issues.

Excellent NPOV article in the Washington Pos that is worth the time to read:

Christians Who Won't Toe the Line Washington Post. By E. J. Dionne Jr. Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A21

"Evangelical Protestantism in the United States is going through a New Reformation that is disentangling a great religious movement from a partisan political machine. This historic change will require liberals and conservatives alike to abandon their sometimes narrow views of who evangelicals are."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031501868.html

The letter by what may be construed as the "old-line" Christian Right can be found at:

http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/NAELetterFinal.pdf

There is a list of signatories who might be taken as self-identifying as some form of "Christian-Right" TheModerate 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article from Bloomberg on support for free speech cited on: http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=2559

Bloomberg News - Supreme Court Case May Limit Free Speech Rights for Students March 19, 2007 by Greg Stohr (Bloomberg) -- The latest U.S. Supreme Court clash over school students' free-speech rights began as little more than a prank.

"Frederick is supported by an unlikely alliance that includes the New York-based American Civil Liberties Union, a gay-rights group and prominent social conservatives including Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. That Washington-based group has argued at the Supreme Court against abortion rights.

Sekulow urged the justices not to let the frivolity of Frederick's banner obscure the importance of student speech rights. He said the court shouldn't restrict the freedom of students to voice opinions about important social and political issues."

Cited material

We are in the process of adding citations to this page. All new material must be cited to a reputable published source. All new material added without proper citation will be removed. All text not cited in the next 30 days will be removed.--Cberlet 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you applied the same standard to your self all would be well. But you refuse to do so. You are a Culture Warrior with an axe to grind. You are not contributing. Stop your vandalism. TheModerate 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks.--Cberlet 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid systematic vandalism. The fact that the Christian right opposes trafficing in persons for sex slavery is well documented. Their opposition to ongoing genocide is also well documented. Please explain why you deleted those from the Issues section or restore those posts. Your next cheap shot will be that the is no cite for these yet. If you are willing to delete all issues in that section without cites I will understand your action as consistent and honest. Will I see that happen? TheModerate 02:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No original research

This is an official policy. See WP:RS.

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.

Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Analyzing Google hits fails this test.--Cberlet 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As does most everything you have posted. Choices like Slate in the Issues section are highly questionable. Perhaps the National Enquirer is next on your list of sources? The entire issues section is weasel words and unsubstantiated. As is the people section. Shall I go on? This whole article is of deplorably low quality. TheModerate 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, would you like us to ask for a mediator?--Cberlet 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to adhere to the same standards you ask of me. I have invited you to participate in the relevant discussion sections before making unexplained deletions. You have insisted on arbitrary and capricious deletions in response. Your pattern is to delete any suggestion that your opponents on the Christian Right are human or ever engage in useful activities. This shows a world view rooted in the Culture War. I challenge you to join in an intelligent discussion before attacking with a systematic campaign of unexplained deletions. TheModerate 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation might help. Please avoid personal attacks.--Cberlet 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A challenge to engage in intelligent discussion rather than vandalize all posts that are inconsistent with your pursuit of a biased POV not a personal attack. The edit logs show your pattern of bias conclusively, and we both know it. Raids deleting uncontested facts that are inconsistent with your POV are unethical. I am actively engaged in the discussion groups and, unlike you up to now, I am open to reasoned discourse. You need to stop vandalizing Wikipedia to make it fit your biased POV. You will find that the article improves as a result. TheModerate 13:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not refer to editing disagreements as "vandalism," it is discouraged under Wiki guidelines. Please stop personalizing our disagreement. Calling another editor "unethical" is a personal attack. Please desist.--Cberlet 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Systematic deletion of uncontested facts that are inconsistent with your Culture War POV. If not "vandalism" it was surely no innocuous editing either. A couple of things are clear. They include that the CR has some important humanitarian positions and campaigns including: opposition to trafficing in persons for sex slavery worldwide, and prostitution in the US and elsewhere which often involves virtual slavery to pimps through violence and drug addiction, and child pornography. Their opposition to ongoing genocide is also well documented. They run substantial and well funded programs to feed, clothe, and vaccinate disparately poor children. You do realize that they take the stand they do on pornography because they view it as immoral exploitation of women, do you not? Is that an issue that the feminists agree with? Is that agreement on BOTH sides of the Culture War? Why suppress it? Yes, the Culture War issues like abortion rights, erotica, gay rights, same sex marriage, judicial activism, and so forth belong there. But my edits did not remove or deface those issues, now did they? Yours aggressively removed factually accurate statements of ADDITIONAL issues that don't fit your world view. BTW, you also removed some edits that fixed sloppy writing. ;-) Ready to call a truce and work on improving the article? TheModerate 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the nasty personal attacks. You do not seem to understand basic Wiki guidelines. This is not a page about the views of conservative evangelicals, it is a page about the Christian Right. There are scores of books and hundreds of articles about the Christian Right. There are published statements by conservative evangelicals objecting to the term "Christian Right." If you go to a library you can find them. There are also numerous issue positions attributed in print to various Christian Right leaders and groups. We should find cites to back up all of the items in the list of issues or remove them. But what is not acceptable is to salt the list with issues that are not specifically highlighted by Christian Right leaders and groups. And it is not up to you or me to pluck these issues out of thin air. You demanded documentation. I am adding it. You now need a citation for every sentence you add. You claimed that cites were needed. That goes for all editors now. If it cannot be cited to a reputable published source, please do not add it. If you are unable or unwilling to cite new text to a reputable published source, please stop editing this page and wasting my time. I have added a score of cites. Your turn.--Cberlet 02:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop calling what I do "vandalism." This is not considered proper here on Wiki.--Cberlet 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What shall I call it? Is culture war POV raiding considered proper here on Wiki? If not then give me an honest term for what you are doing. Meanwhile, I will continue to log your behavior in the vandalism section. TheModerate 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gee... I thought the article abstract says: "The "Christian Right" as a social movement includes individuals from a wide variety of theological beliefs, ranging from moderately traditional movements within Lutheranism and Catholicism to theologically more conservative movements such as Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and Fundamentalist Christianity." Are you the author of that? You might want to narrow that broad brush a bit if you are suddenly excluding these people. Did you know that Lutherans are in a concord with the The Episcopal Church (TEC), which is perhaps one of the most liberal sects in the US and which is famously rupturing the Anglican Communion over ordination of gay bishops? Do you actually know anything about the Christian community? TheModerate 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I already added and offered a large number of references. Please read them. TheModerate 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues section

I removed all the entries in the "Issues" section and am repopulating the list with only material cited to reputable published sources. Any assistance in this effort is greatly appreciated. Please look for cites that mention the "Christian Right" and not conservative evangelicals in general. Thanks.--Cberlet 15:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this a sound approach. TheModerate 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your addition was not proper. Please find a secondary source that says a particluar position is representative of the "Christian Right." Anecdotal incidents do not count. The Christian Right is split on the case heading for the Supreme Court.--Cberlet 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Cberlet Culture war POV Raid: (cur) (last) 01:22, 21 March 2007 Cberlet (Talk | contribs) (Improper addition. No seconday source reports this is a typical position of the Christian Right) After proposing a requirement for references Cberlet defaced the article by removing a well referenced citation. He continues his inellectually dishonest campaign of hostile culture war POV deletions. For issues that agree with his cuturure war POV a single citation to a famously biased web site (Slate) is sufficient documentation. Bloomberg News, which is far more NPOV than Slate is insufficient for issues with with he disagrees."

Dear Cberlet: I added that to the vandalism section log. You are building the case against yourself one act of culture war POV raiding at tine. You document your POV bias further with each passing defacement.

Pleasee restore the properly documented post, or remove ALL entires in the issues section that do not meet the test you propose. You can start with Slate. TheModerate 13:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that TheModerate does not seem to understand the differences between primary and secondary sources, original research and research cited to sources, what consititutes an anecdotal incident versus a seconday source suggesting a paradigm, and other matters related to Wikipedia guidelines. I am requesting Admin intervention.

Dear Chip,

Having looked you up on Google I find your long history of confrontation with those on the right wing by whom you feel threatened.. Clearly you are a veteran Culture Warrior who takes extreme positions for a living. Don't take that the wrong way; I do respect the need for a broad and vigorous discourse in this pluralistic society of ours.

But I have you at a disadvantage, so I will offer you a couple of biographical details.

First, I write here as a Christian with many years of theological training, but one from a very left-wing denomination, much in the news these days for accepting Gays as priests and Bishops, and it has a long tradition of broad carefully reasoned discourse. That is why your comments about Lutherans in the article introduction, who are also on the liberal wing of American Christianity, are so laughable to me. Your knowledge of your fellow extremists may be encyclopedic, but your knowledge of these main stream Christian groups is clearly and profoundly deficient.

Second, I was once a committed Atheist so I know that viewpoint well, too, and do not scoff at the faith of its believers. You will have to excuse me because my faith in Atheism failed me a couple of decades ago, and I now find the two-thousand year tradition of humane beliefs that are the core of Christianity to be better. Yes, I am well aware of the many sins and errors committed in the name of Christianity in that time. But I am also aware of the monstrous butcher bill for the socialist Atheist experiments in the Twentieth Century, with their body count in a just few decades exceeding that of all history's religious wars combined.

Third, I strongly believe in the Separation of Church and State, because it protects the Church. History shows that mixing the two creates an always toxic mixture in which the Church always serves the state.

Fourth, bigotry is on all sides of the Christian Right debate, as much as you deny it. Apropos of that, the major flaw in your contributions is poorly differentiating the extremists you are trying to pursue from the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Evangelicals, and Catholics. There are over a billion of us, and your bigotry does no one justice. You really need to target your polemics more carefully by clearly identifying the extreme fringe you seem to want to discuss. Then again, the habits of a lifetime of conflict may make that impossible for you because you may well see all who have differing opinions as enemies.

Fifth, I must tell you that this encounter was an experiment for me. I saw an article by some (right) wing-nuts claiming the Wikipedia editors were poisonously biased and impervious to reason. They said their views and inputs were systematically suppressed, and that they have had to start their own Wiki version to have a chance to be heard at all. Frankly, I thought they were paranoid. So I decided to log on and bring some balance to a controversial topic just to show they were wrong. What did I find? An irrational old (left) wing-nut agitprop so convinced that he has a compete corner on the truth that he self-righteously suppresses all ideas but his own. You are welcome to the article, and your hatreds. Having learned what I wished to know, I will trouble you no further. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

TheModerate 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is another narrative. It goes like this. User:TheModerate came here, did not bother to learn any of the basic rules, policies, guidelines, or courtesies. User:TheModerate made several edits that violated basic editing policies of Wikipedia. After getting into a disagreement, User:TheModerate became rude, abusive, and posted numerous personal attacks. User:TheModerate ignored several offers of assistance, advice, and mediation. Then User:TheModerate posted a message about an important mission of discovery--and left.--Cberlet 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a third, as well Chip. A new user from a middle-of-the-road position tried to give a little more balance. You did not really offer help; rather you instantly reverted his/her work, condescendingly lectured the new user, demanded compliance with perfect procedures, and actually got into an edit war, which an experienced editor should not be doing. In effect you were claiming ownership (and won). This is not a personal attack; it's a simple description of what I've seen happening, and it's hard for me to understand why you cannot see what you've been doing. Pollinator 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding solving this disagreement

Third parties are invited to post their comments here.--Cberlet 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Buddhipriya
Namaste! I noticed that there was a request for outside views placed on the Wikipedia:Third opinion area, and so am visiting here for the first time. Your discussion is very interesting and it is clear that all parties are seriously concerned with the topic. In trying to get up to speed on the issues, I noticed that the "References" section did not explicitly divide out the footnoted references from the more general background references. On some Wikipedia articles where there are many sources I find it helpful to be able to quickly check individual footnotes. Simply structuring the footnote area in a different way can be a first step to identifying which statements in the article may need additional references per WP:RS. This is a small change to article layout which would not affect content. Would there be any objection to my making such an adjustment to help make the footnotes more clear? I do not wish to increase debate, so please forgive if this suggestion is seen as disruptive.

I also notice that some of the disagreement is on the definition of the term "Christian right". Personally I would find it helpful if the sentences that now form the opening of the article were slightly reorganized to create a subsection specifically on the definition of the term. Simply by isolating out the sentences that are difficult to get agreement on it may be easier for readers to focus on them. For example, the lead of the article includes poll data in the first sentences, but if the defintion of the term is variable, would that not affect poll results? So the question of prevalence of the view is again something that could be put into a section by itself. Isolating out the distinct areas of ideas would make it easier to then focus on one concept at a time in order to reach agreement in that limited area, which may be simpler than reaching agreement on the total article all at once. Buddhipriya 03:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Jkelly
Counting Google hits and then using the results as a "reference" in the article is unquestionably in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. This should be obvious from even a brief glance at that policy page. It is not clear to me that anything going on here would not be resolved elegantly by adherence to our content policies. Jkelly 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Buddhipriya
I see that the article is now protected, which may help give a cooling off period. I concur with the comment by Jkelly that adhering to content policies should be helpful in bringing more consensus to the article. One approach may be to begin by taking a strict view of what content should remain in the main article, and moving anything that is either not cited by a footnote, or cited by a footnote that is contested, to a work area on the talk page. This would probably reduce the length of the article for a while, but the ideas would be kept on a worklist on the talk page. The goal of this first step would be to get a mutually-acceptable nucleus into the main article, with a work list backstage. The second step would be to take the work list one item at a time and either source the item in a solid way, or move it down in priority order as something that will take more time to settle. A quick pass through the whole work list in this way will move some of the items to the main article fairly quickly, with only a residual list of more difficult items remaining on the talk page. This approach to consensus building sometimes works well because it clearly identifies which items are sticking points.

If you would like neutral informal mediators to help you work things out, check out the friendly folks at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Just a suggestion. Buddhipriya 05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Pollinator
The most frequent editor on this page, Chip Berlet, is one of the most vociferous critics of the Christian/religious right. On this page he is more muted in his criticisms, however he has adopted a heavy-handed, nitpicky style of editing that just about asserts ownership of the page. What is wrong with this picture? Pollinator 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh Pollinator, please. I just reviewed the last 500 edits. I am not the most frequent editor of this page. I bend over backwards on this page to follow NPOV. This is a cheap shot. I urge you to delete both of these messages. --Cberlet 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Both? And I'll specify in the last few days...is that agreeable? Pollinator 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, let's talk about this. The new editor, TheModerate, demanded that the page be cited properly. I began to add proper cites. That was not sufficient for TheModerate. So as TheModerate suggested, and to show good faith, I deleted numerous uncited or improperly cited material from the "Issues" section, even though I though almost all were accurate and NPOV. TheModerate then continued to insert improperly cited material that was factually false.

There are at least three areas where the Christian Right has internal disagreements. There is the publicized case involving "free speech" in which leaders of the Christian Right are on both sides of the issue. There is the environment and global warming, with leaders of the Christian Right on both sides of the issue. And there is government surveillance and spying related to the Patriot Act, with leaders of the Christian Right on both sides of the issue. In none of these arenas is it accurate to suggest that one side or the other represent the majority "Issues" position of the Christian Right.

TheModerate failed to learn the basics of editing, and pursued an aggressive and nasty series of personal attacks. Rather than rise to those attacks, I filed an RFC, asked for a Third Opinion," and then asked for administrator intervention. Rather than stay and discuss our disagreements after the page was locked, TheModerate left, leaving the page in disarray. I note that it was I who found the proper cites for the claim that the term "Christian Right" was problematic--the opposite of my POV. This was hardly "ownership" of the page. I was trying to avoid moving to a mediation where this disagreement could be sorted out with the help of an experienced editor. I tried repeatedly to discuss what was wrong with the flawed additions inserted by TheModerate. I was tired of the repeated personal attacks. I tried repeatedly to get them to cease to no avail. I followed Wiki procedures. Perhaps I was too quick to revert, but never without an attempt to enagage in a serious discussion of content--which was met with one personal attack after another.

Now you are using this incident to engage in a another personal attack on me. What's the point, Pollinator?--Cberlet 13:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from

Restart

I think the whole article should be tossed, and a new one started. With some kind of ground rules. -- Martin | talk • contribs 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The ground rules are provided by standard Wiki guidelines. I propose re-opening the page for edits, and I will attempt to find cites for the material on the United States over the next month.--Cberlet 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)