Talk:Christian Coalition of America

Untitled
this article is good. one thing, though. i'm very interested in the CC gaining an exemption to avoid taxes, however i simply cannot find anything via google substantiating this. i have more looking to do, but so far, everything i've seen only refers to the CC losing its status, nothing on their later gaining an exemption. peace, [Note: This question was posed by an anonymous user at IP address 68.115.193.125 on 24 October 2005.]

Tax Exempt Status
As the person who wrote previously to me noted, neither can I find any information verifying that the Christian Coalition won tax exempt status. The only important event on the subject that I found was that the coalition was denied its request for this status: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/june99/christian11.htm Could someone verify this information, or correct it? [Note: This question was posed by an anonymous user at IP address 24.130.254.155 on 9 January 2006.]

Dear Fellow Editors: The article as currently written contains apparent contradictions. Is this organization currently tax exempt or not? That is, is the income of the organization exempt from Federal income taxation under U.S. law? The web site for the organization, as of this posting, includes the following statement:


 * Christian Coalition of America is organized and operates as a 501(c)(4) organization, gifts to which are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes. []

If the Christian Coalition is a 501(c)(4) organization, then its income may be generally tax-exempt for Federal income tax purposes, but "contributions" to the organization would not be deductible by the donors -- at least, not as charitable contributions.

I'll try to nail down the facts on whether this organization really is a 501(c)(4) organization later. Famspear 05:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I found references and included the info (the loss of its tax-exempt status in 1999 and its consent decree, restoring its 501(c)(4) status in 2005) in a general rewrite. Hope this helps.--HughGRex 18:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian Coalition & Dominionism
The Christian Coalition is strongly associated with Dominionism in both the mainstream press and in the academic world. This is a fundamental (pardon the pun) point in understanding the spectrum of viewpoints about the Christian Coalition and the political waters in which it swims. Constantly chasing the point out of the article leaves out a significant viewpoint, and will not pass muster with WP:NPOV.

As for sources for this viewpoint, Cornell University's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy is an unimpeachable academic source, and specifically cites the Christian Coalition as being dominionist:,. Including this viewpoint as an attributed statement in the article fully meets all provisions of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Instead of continued deleting or white washing of this viewpoint, I suggest the responsible parties find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The viewpoint is also well-documented at religioustolerance.org. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Cornell group does not say the Christian Coalition is dominionist. It merely uses it congressional score card to rank congresmen. Likewise the religioustolerance website does not characterize the group (it quotes Ralph Reed criticizing another group). What you hav here is simply low grade conspiracy theory. Rjensen 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Cornell group does not say the Christian Coalition is dominionist." Really? "Low grade conspiracy theory," you say? Right.
 * From Cornell's theocracywatch.org :
 * Dominionist Influence in The U.S. Congress
 * One way to measure the political strength of dominionists is to study voting patterns of members of Congress. A recent amendment added to a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, HR 2123, allows religious discrimination in Head Start hiring which is a serious blow to both religious liberty and civil rights. more The graph on the right shows how Representatives voted.


 * 210 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted for the amendment. 9 Republicans, 186 Democrats and 1 independent voted against the amendment. This graph illustrates that dominionists reside overwhelmingly in one political party. Since the Republican Party has majorities in both houses of Congress, they set the agendas, chair the committees, and decide which bills will and won't come up for a vote.


 * Congressional scorecards from organizations such as the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, and Eagle Forum also illustrate the strength of dominionists in Congress.
 * Claiming Cornell's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy does not say the Christian Coalition is dominionist is an excerise in denying the obvious. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

afl-cio claim removed
I have removed the following (and edited, to make the ref inline):


 * Like many Christian right groups, it is against organized labor. One of its political training manuals states:


 * :"Christians have a responsibility to submit to the authority of their employers since they are designated as part of God’s plan for the exercise of authority on the earth by man." (ref: "Politics in America: The Right Wing Attack on the American Labor Movement"; URL accessed [[April 29], 2006.)

If you want to determine the views of CC, you might use as a primary source the CC itself, or much better, a reliable 3rd party source, such as NY Times, CNN, etc... These sould be easy to find. However, the above is using organized labour itself, as a source of CC's views on organized labour. It states the chracterization as fact, not as the opinion of the organization (revealing the name, only in the footnote). Also, it would be a little more useful to be somewhat more precise. What are the views of CC on organized labour? Let's give exmaples of their views on different labour legislation.

Incidently, this type of sourcing would be as bad, as using the CC as source to say somebody is opposed to organized religion. Generally, organizations make bad secondary sources in articles about their opponents. This is so, even if the claim is true.

NOTE: If you have personally found the CC manual in question (and it is publicly available, e.g. "published"), read it, confirmed the quote, then you may use *that* as a source, because it would be CC characterizing itself. But, if that was done, you would have to better word it. Also, the quote, doesn't actually support the claim of fact. --Rob 01:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. --  tariq abjotu  04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Christian Coalition → Christian Coalition of America – {Three organizations go by the name which makes the disambig section at the top rather long. Would like to change article name to the full organziation name and use the short form name as a disambiguation page. --StuffOfInterest 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)}

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Very Weak Support - Christian Coalition of America is by far and away the most popular usage, though I understand the need for a dismabig, and the NZ group looks notable. Should it fail, why not just create a disambig page? Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Not that the Christian Coalition of America is strictly a political party (CC of NZ was), but common practice for political parties of different nations sharing names is to make the primary name a dab page, since they are each most prominent in their particular country. See Republican Party, Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, etc. –  Anþony  talk  05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the whole, Oppose; Christian Coalition is the common name. The header problem is real, but can be solved by setting up a dab page. Septentrionalis 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Anþony above. Andrewa 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Rewrite
I think a prominent interest group such as this one deserves a better article than what's currently here. There is one section which is "brief history" (which happens to not be brief but just a summary of facts and statements relating to CCA). I came here for research on the organization and found nothing of use in regards to political activities and legislation that it's supported and been against. In fact, there's more facts here making the CCA look bad (though I may be biased as a right-wing protestant) than there are showing what good it has done.

With the above said, the latter half of "brief history" has no organization or coherence to it; something all Wikipedia articles should have. I'm willing to work on it at a later date but for now, I am giving it the rewrite tag. Agree or Disagree below. --Novaprospekt 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (I'm moving this section to the end of the page, to conform with the Wikipedia standard.)
 * Okay, I've made a stab at a rewrite. I've found a number of references to back up what was written in the article, reworded some phrases and sentences for clarity, and sectioned off parts of the "Brief" history. I hope this contributes to a much better article, but I don't think we're there yet. Much further rewriting will help.
 * Is this wholesale revision sufficient to remove the "rewrite" tag?--HughGRex 18:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Deletions
While I agree that this article needs some slight revision, wholesale deletion isn't the way to go about it. Let's focus on specific sections that are inaccurate or clear PoV. --BRPierce (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article seems to contain long unsourced passages. But the way the anonymous editor goes about it is completely unacceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's definitely room for compromise here, and the article certainly has issues. If we work together, we can fix them...but let's use a scalpel, not a chainsaw. --BRPierce (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone should definitely purse administration action against that crazy anon, "65." something or other. A lot of legitimate stuff keeps getting removed.SayWhatRollerCoasterUhUhUh (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been almost two years since the first round of section mass-blanking but the anonymous editor seems to have a different IP address. This time it now starts with the numbers 98.91. And this time the same anonymous editor also includes sections of text that effusively praise an apparent director of the CC but the statements are completely lacking in citations.TheBalkan (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline POV
Section is unbalanced with a barage of stories about debts. – Lionel (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly, my friend, are you trying to do here anyway?


 * You created the "Decline" section. Before did that, the article had no sections! It was just one page of text with paragraph breaks, in mostly chronological order. Why would you create a section, then complain that it was unbalanced?


 * The only thing I can think of is you have some ideological motive. Is it because you are pro-CC and you want some of the information removed? Is that why you created the section and then immediately complained about how unbalanced it is? Almost all of the information is properly sourced. And if the CC has fallen on hard times, that is the way it is. If I was "pro-Roman Empire", I could not just go and complain that the section covering the Western half's fall is too grim. History is history.SomerGrand (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sections assist the reader in finding specific info about the org. The article is too long to navigate otherwise. With or without section titles there is a POV problem. – Lionel (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sections are fine, cutting large amounts of material is not. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphan paragraph
I removed this paragraph (2nd in the Early years section) as it was unsourced and not well written.

I'm parking it here, until it can be rewritten and sourced. – MrX 01:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsourced as well as OR.    little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I removed the last sentence from the Early years section. It didn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph, and it didn't seem to be sourced. Perhaps someone can re-incorporate it.

Robertson named Combs as executive vice president in 1999 when Hodel left. – MrX 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Organization's name
I have (for the most part) replaced the name of the organization to CCA throughout the article per WP:MOS. Perhaps it should be Christian Coalition, Christian Coalition of America, Christian Coalition of America, Inc., or 'the Coalition', but it definitely should not bounce back and forth between these variations. – MrX 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Condensing
Unless there are objections, I'm going to shorten some of the more recent history, in which it currently reads as if they are in a long, slow financial death spiral. I would think this could be summed up in a few paragraphs. – MrX 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) – MrX 02:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Inexplicable removal of sourced content
It was removed again. Let's discuss. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really didn't understand why such a large amount of sourced content was removed, but failing an explanation on this talk page, I'm forced to believe it was to remove anything negative about CCA, no matter how relevant to their history. The edit summary was pretty snarky as well. – MrX 04:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the anonymous user's problem is but I would assume that after vandalizing this article for years under several very different IP addresses, that they are not going to stop anytime soon.RyanChamberlyn (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Protection
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Christian Coalition of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20010308053913/http://www.washingtontimes.com:80/national/default-200135222537.htm to http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/default-200135222537.htm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081230224143/http://www.cephas-library.com:80/church_n_state/churchnstate_christian_coalition_shrinks_as_debt_grows.html to http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state/churchnstate_christian_coalition_shrinks_as_debt_grows.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)