Talk:Christian right/Archive 4

Billy Graham
I was surprised to find the name of Rev. Billy Graham in the list of influencial voices in the Christian right. While he is the leader for one of the largest evangelical movements in history, his sermons rarely if ever contain political or extreme theological themes. Billy Graham's own Wikipedia article attests to his long support of the Democratic party for many years, though it also mentions Graham's attempt to distance himself from politics in recent years, making him most likely to be considered apolitical. His appearance in this list, I believe, is another example of how we so easily mix up the words evangelical, fundamentalist, Baptist, and Christian right. These are all independent groups, though overlap occurs frequently.


 * The kid, yes, but Billy? It's a judgement call, but probably not appropriate for just a listing. We could talk about the symbiosis at various moments between Billy Graham and the intermediary Christian Right in the 1950s and early 1950, but that is a complicated issue not suited to a listing.  I agree with removing his name.--Cberlet 20:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps
Fred Phelps is not a member of the Christian right. His ideals are based largely on hate rather than social benefit. Therefore, his name doesn't belong among the Christian right any more than Adolph Hitler's. His name should be removed.


 * Fred Phelps claims to be a member of the Christian Right. His followers claim to be members of the Christian Right.  He uses the language of the Christian Right and shares agenda with the Christian Right.  I'm sorry that his being motivated by hatred makes you uncomfortable, but Fred Phelps certainly belongs in a comprehensive article on the Christian Right. Perhaps the article should contain some description about hate speech and hate crimes among the Christian Right, or the co-opting of the Christian Right by people motivated by hatred, racism, bigotry.  Falwell being a timely example of a purveyor of hate speech (see the Wikipedia entry on Jerry Falwell for examples).nittacci 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[User: Nittacci] Tuesday, May 22, 2007 19:25 GMT

-- M. Rawls, 5:29, March 25, 2008
 * I agree with Nittacci. Much of Wikipedia depends on self-identification. However, if you can find a reliable source that says, "Fred Phelps is not a member of the Christian Right because of ...", please add it. --Kevinkor2 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In regard to Kevinkor2's comments, I don't think that anyone needs to reliable source stating the Phelps is not a member of the Christian Right. Phelps is unique and defies comparision.  If it was just the "God hates fags" thing, then his inclusion could be argued as necessary in a broad definition of the CR.  But the protests at military funerals places him outside discussion, or at least would confuse the general discussion, about what the CR is.


 * Fred Phelps should not be listed as a member of the Christian Right, because he has supported the Democrats in the past - see the Wikipedia page on him. He may have changed his mind, but if so, what evidence is there to support his inclusion on this list. -- BenStevenson 14:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Right and Segregation
I removed the following sentence from the racism paragraph because it is weasel-worded. I did not reword it because the thought that the Christian Right is racist because its rise coincides with the "decline of civil rights opposition" seems illogical. If the point is that the Christian Right is racist because Jerry Falwell opposed civil rights, please cite a source before levelling accusations.
 * "On the other hand, the chronological consanguity of the rise of the religious right in the United States with the decline of civil rights opposition, combined with commonality of leaders such as Jerry Falwell, have led to questions about continued co-identity."

I removed the following quote for several reasons. First, its inclusion prejudicially implies a stronger link between racism and the Christian Right than exists. Second, the History section says the movement started in the mid-1970's, but the quote references earlier segregationist movements. Third, the biased political blog cited was established Jan 2007 is not yet a credible source. Finally, the quote is out of context- it doesn't accuse the CR of racism, but of failing to convince outsiders that the CR isn't segregationist; he's discussing a public relations problem. Therefore, it is misleading, at best, to assert the Marsh quote alleges "a relationship between the Christian Right and the segregationist movement".
 * University of Virginia theologian Charles Marsh, author of Wayward Christian Soldiers described the relationship between the Christian Right and the segregationist movement:
 * As someone who grew up in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement, ... my reading is that the conservative Christian movement never was able to distinguish itself from the segregationist movement, and that is one of the reasons I find so much of the rhetoric familiar -- and unsettling.


 * What reliable source do you have that the "link between racism and the Christian Right" is weaker than Marsh implies? You appear to be POV-pushing.
 * I don't need an RS to remove; according to the page you linked, you need several to justify inclusion. Take a look at the sections "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Also, I'm not the one pushing Marsh's POV; if supported and prevalent, it could qualify with an appropriate mix of other POVs under NPOV rules. But it doesn't measure up. The quote expresses Marsh's bias (based not on evidence, but Marsh's personal "reading" based on nothing more than living "in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement", like millions of others). Unless there's something less biased, it's out, at least until it can be given an accurate, NPOV context.
 * You made the accusation "First, its inclusion prejudicially implies a stronger link between racism and the Christian Right than exists." -- substantiate it or strike it! That the CR has strong historic links to the segregationalist movement is not an "exceptional" claim, given its leadership's segregationalist roots. You appear to be attempting to whitewash the CR's segregationalist roots. What facts do you have to back up your accusation of bias against Marsh? Hrafn42 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the quote in the article first made the assertion that must be substantiated or stricken. Conveniently enough for me, the absense of evidence is all the evidence my reply needs-- if I'm wrong, prove it. It is counter-productive to divert attention away from a discusiion of the article. There's no need for this to turn into a flame war. Just find reliable sources substantiating your assertions, put them in the article, I'll stop removing them, and we can proceed to work on writing for NPOV.
 * And I have substantiated the opinion contained in that quote. You however have not substantiated your claim that "First, its inclusion prejudicially implies a stronger link between racism and the Christian Right than exists." -- therefore this unsubstantiated claim cannot be considered a reason for excluding Marsh's statement. Hrafn42 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the debate seems to have been resolved, I'd like to point out that the article already substantiates my claim in its Terminology section. The Powell study concluded there was no link between the politics of Christian fundamentalists and racism. By leaving out the research indicating racism is exceptional, the words I removed tended to assert a stronger relationship between CR and racial segregationism than exists within the movement. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 23:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The history section does not say that the Christian Right started in the 1970s, it states "[t]he term New Religious Right refers to a set of organizations that emerged in the late 1970s" -- strongly implying that an "old" Religious Right was already in existence.
 * No, the clear implication of the history section beginning with the start of the "New Religious Right" in the 1970s is that the topic begins there. If there is historical evidence of the current movement predating what's mentioned in the history section, prepend it to the history section. Otherwise, move information about prior movements to their own topics (Old Right (United States), maybe?).
 * This is a specious argument. The CR did not miraculously appear, without precursor, in the 1970s. It was an outgrowth of pre-existing viewpoints and movements, just like any just about any other major political and/or religious movement in history. Given the social conservatism of the CR, and the fact that large numbers of social conservatives were involved in attempting to preserve segregationalism in the 1960s, it would be highly surprising if there wasn't a historic link between the two. Hrafn42 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument is not specious, but logical. If you want to assert the movement has an earlier beginning or that its roots in a prior movement are relevant to the current one, write it up and cite reliable sources. Again, be bold. I'm honestly just trying to be sure we get it right.
 * I do not "...want to assert the movement has an earlier beginning...", only that it, like every other major movement, has "...its roots in [some] prior movement[s]...", which is blindingly obvious. That one of these movements was segregationalism is clearly supported by reliable sources.
 * Thanks for writing it up and citing more reliable sources.


 * It could be argued that the increased organisation of the 'New Religious Right' in the 1970s was a reaction to the Civil Rights movement's defeats of social conservatism in the 1960s.
 * Feel free. Be bold. But, "could be argued" is weasel-wording, so document the major opinions, too, not just the WP:Fringe theories.
 * I am not arguing for this hypothesis to be included in the article, merely offering it as another reason why your "don't mention anything before the 1970s" argument is specious. Hrafn42 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If ties to the segregationist movement weren't substantial enough to be included in the article, then the quote also wouldn't be substantial enough to be included in the article, would it? There's nothing specious about requiring consistency.
 * I do not "...want to assert the movement has an earlier beginning...", only that it, like every other major movement has "...its roots in [some] prior movement[s]..." is blindingly obvious. That one of these movements was segregationalism is clearly supported by reliable sources.


 * The Politico is not a blog, and Marsh is a published author and academic. Additionally, The Politico is accused of having a Right Wing bias -- meaning that it is, if anything, too favourable to the CR.
 * The definition of a blog can be debated elsewhere; The Politico is a larger org than most blogs, but was established, primarily online, less than 7 months before the interview ran. If there's truly a "relationship between the Christian Right and the segregationist movement", there should be many other reliable sources to choose from, hopefully that don't rely so much on bias. Whether favorable or unfavorable, left-wing or right-wing, bias is still bias.
 * Blogs, regardless of their size, are purely online organisations. The Politico also has print and television outlets. It is thus not a blog. Citing an outlet's favourable bias, for a quote that you are simultaneously claiming is unfavourably biased, is incoherent and specious. Hrafn42 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, what qualifies as a blog should be debated elsewhere. I contribute to a blog whose entries are frequently published in print and read on the radio. It's still a blog, but that's irrelevant to our discussion. The credibility problem has to do with the fact that The Politico hasn't been around long enough to be considered "reliable" or "established", but in time that will change. It's size (editorial staff, readership) and bias (editorial policy) would factor into reliability; but if the statement made is really substantial, there will be plenty of more reliable sources that corroborate it, so pick a few. As for the incoherence of my argument, I am arguing that the way the quote was included presents a point of view that is neither substantiated directly in the article nor indirectly in the linked source, thereby biasing the article by its inclusion. I have not argued that a right-wing bias has somehow morphed into a left-wing bias.
 * No! You made the this accusation, you substantiate it. I am sick to death of you making unsubstantiated accusations! In any case, The Politico is not itself making these comments it is merely quoting Marsh. It's purported editorial bias is therefore irrelevant, and the weight placed on its reliability is minimal. Are you claiming that they are so unreliable an organisation that they cannot be trusted to quote an interviewee accurately? Hrafn42 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What accusation? That it isn't reliable? A Columbia Journalism Review editorial chastizes the single-source editorial policy that led to admitted falsehoods being reported as fact. In it's short history, The Politico has also had to retract "slow bleed" and Al Gonzales' resignation process, among others. Salon's Greenwald rips the "vapid" style of its news stories as "The Politico Sewer", and asks if its inaccuracies make it a "Gossip rag masquerading as news organization". There's plenty more.
 * That it's a blog? The definition of a blog is definitely broad enough to cover it-- a mix of news, links, and opinion organized chronologically. The publishers admitted on CBS that it's not a traditional news organization. According to its own site, its 3-a-week paper prints only 25,000 copies, distributed from freebie bins around D.C., and "there is a vastly larger audience outside the capital..." who will "read us at politico.com." According to Quantcast, the Politico's online Politico.com audience of about 466,880 is less than that of blog Wonkette.com's 669,945. Assuming each freebie paper is read by one person (never happens), the Politico's Web site still accounts for at least 95% of its audience. In contrast, even the HuffPo gets 2,245,494 uniques, and the Washington Post's 3.7 million accounts for less than 79% of its weekly audience (about 1 million read the paper version weekly in 2005). The Politico should be commended for attempting to blend old and new media, but for now, while it is still a fledgling experiment, its track record is spotty at best, and it's credibility, for now, remains questionable.
 * Wikipedia has 50 links to Politico news stories, so a fairly large number of people disagree with you. Also, while The Politico does maintain blogs, they are on a separate hierarchy (www.politico.com/blogs/) from their news stories. Hrafn42 10:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just like most large blogs or semi-blogs. Wikipedia is chock full of links to blogs and other unreliable sources. The Daily Kos has 481 links, compared to the Politico's 104 links, 19 of which are under its official "blogs" heading. When establishing a POV to achieve WP:NPOV, that's fine-- but when merely repeating the biases of a blogger, reporter, interviewee, or author without carefully providing NPOV context, it's going to be removed until it's improved. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 23:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is claiming that the quote "accuse[s] the CR of racism"? The link is between CR & segregationalism. Many of the CR's leadership were segregationalists in the 60s, and Marsh is stating that their movement is still using very similar rhetoric today.
 * Hrafn42 15:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The WP page on segregation is entitled "Racial segregation", and even though racism is technically distinct, racial segregationism in the U.S. is generally assumed to be motivated by racism unless explicitly stated otherwise. If you believe your assertion to be true, document the specific segregationist activities of specific CR leaders and list specific rhetoric today that remains segregationist; and link up the reliable sources. Quoting someone else's POV is only okay within the NPOV rules. Otherwise, quoted bias is no different than original bias.
 * No. That would be OR, and outside wikipedia's purview. I have a reliable source for the opinion, it is not an exceptional one, so I see no reason not to include it. Hrafn42 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Point being that biasing a quote is as far outside of WP's "purview" as OR, unless care is taken to convert bias to POV, then NPOV. I will draw your attention one final time to the sections "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" of the reliable sources guidelines. Any time you accuse anyone, particularly a large modern political movement, of having ties to segregationism or racism without introducing specifics, the allegation is contentious, thereby exceptional, and therefore requiring better sources. According to Jimbo, it's better to omit the contentious material until it can be substantiated. Substantiate it, and it's back in.
 * The relationship between the CR and Segregation is not an exceptional claim. You can draw my attention to it as many times as you like, it will not change the fact. On POV & quoting, I clearly attributed the opinion to Marsh, negating POV problems. As a theologian & academic, he would appear to be qualified to make such an opinion. I therefore don't see what the problem is. Hrafn42 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Powell study clearly indicates that racist (and by extrapolation, probably also racial segregationist) tendencies would be exceptions to the general rule, so they are exceptional. They are also contentious, or we would not be contending them. Exceptions must use better sources, as you have now done, and "poorly sourced contentious material" will be removed until it is improved, as you have also now done. Thanks. --Anoop. 74.192.49.12 23:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments! Hrafn42 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. --Anoop. 74.192.49.12 07:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet you keep neglecting to do it. Sign your comments! I will not respond to any more unsigned comments. Hrafn42 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One can only hope.

Further evidence of the relationship between the Christian Right and segregation
Excerpt from Thy Kingdom Come, by Randall Balmer, Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith, NPR Hrafn42 04:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/01/09/justice_sunday/ 'We shall overcome ... liberals' - Salon] Hrafn42 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Avenging angel of the religious right - Salon Hrafn42 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that these quotes strongly indicate that residual segregationalism was contemporaneous with the formation of the 'New Religious Right' in the 1970s. Hrafn42 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Progress. If you characterize these ideas and sources accurately in the article, I won't remove them. For context, I'll look for polls or studies that might help measure the degree of residual segregationist sentiment within the CR from 1970s-2000s, and sources for defenses against such allegations that may be available. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 07:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Polls would not be an accurate representation of opinion on this. Segregation & racism are no longer socially acceptable, so people will have a reason to lie to pollsters about it. Hrafn42 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic literature on Religion & Racial Prejudice
The journal article by Powell and Steelman referenced in the Terminology section after racism and sexism establishes "that fundamentalism... significantly predicts neither racism nor sexism" in political decisions, so I'm looking for similar research specifically about racial segregation. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 07:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The full quote is "Observe that fundamentalism as defined by Peek and Brown significantly predicts neither racism nor sexism." (my emphasis) The problem appears to be with operational definitions of "fundamentalism" for such surveys -- "Despite this spate of research activities there exists no clear consensus on the proper method to operationalize evangelic and fundamentalist Christians" -- Fundamentalists and Politics: An Analysis of the Effects of Differing Operational Definitions Clyde Wilcox, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1986), pp. 1041-1051 Hrafn42 09:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

74.192.49.12 is attempting to pretend, both here and in the article, that Powell and Steelman give general support for a claim that fundamentalism is unrelated to racism. This is not true. They make the very narrow point that:

The Peek and Brown definition is not the only one however, nor is the Powell and Steelman study the only work being done in this field. As Wilcox observes:

I would suggest that it is imprudent to attempt to make general claims about the statistical relationship between fundamentalism and racism until a reliable secondary source (e.g. a review article) can be found that delineates and resolves the disparity found in the primary literature on this subject. Hrafn42 04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If so, then it is also imprudent to attempt make any general claims at all about the political leanings of Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists while "there exists no clear consensus on the proper method to operationalize evangelic and fundamentalist Christians"; if so, we should just delete the entire article. Of course, I disagree. Instead, we should try to write an encyclopedic entry on the CR as best we can with what we have, and Powell-Steelman is what we have, even if it goes against preconceived notions of various groups. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sex Prejudice among White Protestants: Like or Unlike Ethnic Prejudice?, Charles W. Peek, Sharon Brown, Social Forces, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Sep., 1980), pp. 169-185

Christian Faith and Ethnic Prejudice: A Review and Interpretation of Research, Richard L. Gorsuch, Daniel Aleshire, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 281-307

This would appear to provide strong evidence that the literature does in fact find a relationship between fundamentalism and racial prejudice. Hrafn42 05:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that doesn't apply to a group as varied as the CR unless one removes the nuances at G&A's core. The CR is composed of highly active members, and G&A found that "highly active members were as tolerant as nonmembers". Also, within any religious movement, there is a blend of people who are "intrinsically religious" and "theologically discriminating", which the study finds "more tolerant". Than who? From context, "nonmembers". Thus, G&A may serve to help identify which members within the CR are more likely to be "prejudiced" and which are less likely, but it's hardly a condemnation of the entire CR, and may even go further than P&S in support of the idea that active members aren't as prejudiced as the general population.
 * G&A also say, "Other investigators have suggested that 'the more religious the more prejudiced' conclusion holds only when religion is insufficiently differentiated (eg, Allport and Ross, 1967; Dittes, 1969, 1971; Lenski, 1961; Spilka and Reynolds, 1965)." So, I will continue removing any misleading insinuations that P&S is the "only" or "single" study calling into question whether it is accurate to characterize as racist or sexist a group as large and religiously diverse as the CR based on studies of narrowly-defined religious practices or beliefs. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, according to Google Scholar, the Gorsuch & Aleshire article is cited more than five times as frequently as Powell & Steelman is - making it the more influential, and likely the more authoritative, article on the subject. Hrafn42 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Do Religious Fundamentalists Tend to be Prejudiced?, Bob Altemeyer, International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2003, Vol. 13, No. 1, Pages 17-28 Hrafn42 05:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One point that should be made is that we're generally only relying on the abstract+first page for these articles. For G&A that doesn't matter so much, because P&B summarise their conclusions for us, in their first page. However, for both P&S and Wilcox, we cannot know if the quoted passages fully reflect their conclusions. Does P&S find that the significance level changes for a different operational definition of 'fundamentalism', does Wilcox find that the lack of a clear consensus on definition doesn't affect conclusions? We cannot know. It would be helpful if somebody had access to the full articles or could point us to a reliable secondary source that summarises them. Hrafn42 05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * +1 --Anoop 74.192.49.12 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the passage:

...is referring to Gorsuch & Aleshire, not Peek & Brown. Hrafn42 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough-- the placement of the P&B reference immediately after the quote was confusing, so I'll move it to the following sentence where P&B is mentioned. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't -- the citation is in the right place! It is a citation for P&B's summary of G&A's conclusions (which is the only use I make of P&B -- so it belongs nowhere else). I really wish that you would read the article more carefully before attempting to edit it. Hrafn42 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The P&S study is a review of the P&B study, so it would introduce bias to omit that these two quoted studies are linked. To avoid the linkage problem, drop P&B's summary and quote G&A directly. Also, I am parsing the article quite carefully. The editing process naturally involves participants correcting each other. You're finding good research, but we need to be careful to avoid bias when characterizing it. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty to let G&A characterize itself, by removing P&B's indirect characterization. Feel free to re-introduce the P&B quote, if necessary, in a way that easier to link with P&S. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what you have done! You have "taken the liberty" of substituting G&A's "indirect characterization" of unspecified "[o]ther investigators['s]" findings! This is clearly no improvement, so I am restoring P&B's summary of G&A. Hrafn42 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look closer, you'll see that's not what I did. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In p223 of Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary (1997) David H. Wulff reviews the literature and concludes:

This would appear to refute P&S, rendering it a minority viewpoint (and thus to be de-emphasised under WP:UNDUE). Hrafn42 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing and weasel words
That Jerry Falwell and Rousas John Rushdoony supported segregation is not simply something that "critics point out" (which critics, incidentally?) -- it is a fact, established by their own statements. "Critics point out..." is thus weasel words. Hrafn42 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I have also restored information on Marsh that demonstrates his competence to make the opinions he does. Given 74.192.49.12's unsubstantiated accusation of bias against him, I think that this is reasonable. I have also restored Marsh & Balmer's full quotes, as 74.192.49.12's butchered versions tended to minimise the linkage between CR & segregation. Hrafn42 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid bias, I must insist we summarize G&A using its own summary statement, "moderately active church members were found to be prejudiced but highly active members were as tolerant as nonmembers", which "held regardless of when the studies were conducted, from whom the data came, the region where the data were collected, or the type of prejudice studied." I am willing to compromise by omitting its observation that "[o]ther investigators have suggested that 'the more religious the more prejudiced' conclusion holds only when religion is insufficiently differentiated", if you are willing to stop using. If we do mention P&B, we must do so in a way that links it to the findings of P&S in order to avoid bias. Your other quotations must also be summarized for encyclopedic style, if not by you or me, then by someone else. This process will leave biographical information to separate articles and replace several details (such as those about the discrimination at Bob Jones University) to their main pages on the Wiki. If the style has not been improved by this time next week, I'll try it again myself. --Anoop. 74.192.49.12 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To impose bias you wish to replace an on-point characterisation about fundamentalists, with a tangental point about "highly active members". The overlap between CR and fundamentalism is far higher than between that and highly-active church members generally. I must insist that this is a violation of WP:NPOV. Further, you have NO EVIDENCE that "P&B to mischaracterize[s] G&A" and I will NOT accept your continued attempts to delete reliably sourced information on the basis of your baseless accusations. Hrafn42 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I were really interested in imposing pro-CR bias, I wouldn't be working so hard to make its criticism more bulletproof, would I? Please don't take it so personally when I find bias in the text, yours or mine-- I don't assume that it's intentional on your part, so please reciprocate. You have made the case that the P&B quote is important, so I will work to re-introduce it, as I described: in a way that allows G&A to summarize itself and links P&B's perspective to its criticism in P&S in an effort to avoid bias. If you can quote G&A directly in a way that supports P&B's assertions about it, please do. Otherwise, please allow me to help you work toward WP:NPOV by applying a high standard. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 04:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that any "summarization" of Balmer or Marsh would lead to inevitatable arguments about NPOV, I think it is better to let them speak for themselves. This eliminates any question of elimination of context or misrepresentation by elimination. The level of direct quoting is hardly excessive, and wikipedia would not have this feature if such quotes were meant to never be used. Hrafn42 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the title of the section mentions diversity, I am adding the following information from Pew Research Center: --Anoop 74.192.49.12 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you did not "add" it. You substituted it for G&A's finding on fundamentalist racial prejudice. Stop misrepresenting your edits! Hrafn42 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies -- the dif made it look like you'd substituted, when in fact you'd only added -- will revert my reversion. Hrafn42 04:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also reconsider your change of the section's title. The fact that CR membership is almost twice as popular among blacks as whites speaks to both its diversity of membership and its level of racial hostility. I am restoring the P&B quote at your request in a way that will maintain NPOV, and am asking you to reconsider the Pew material, which is also from a reliable source. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The section has clearly always been about attitudes. I see no reason to reverse my clarification of the title. Additionally, I have my suspicions about the Pew poll, as it is based on self-identification, which can be unreliable. This is particularly true as some consider the term "Religious Right" to be pejorative. That only 20% of white evangelicals identify as being members of the 'Religious Right' strikes me as low. A poll based on a more objective measure than self-identification would be highly preferable. Hrafn42 05:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning what the section has always been about, it has undergone several name changes, and in the past has had paragraphs directly about diversity, racism, segregation, apartheid, immigration, Katrina relief, indiginous rights in NZ, etc. Many of these sections were removed because they levelled contentious allegations and failed to cite sources, but I expect some of them to be restored, just as we are doing now, when/if reliable sources can be found. As for the Pew study I cited, the only direct correlation between the CR and race I can find in Pew's reports are for self-identification; but the 2006 survey and the 2004 survey both collected much more in-depth data that I suspect has been correlated to race by now. In particular, the 2004 survey tracked approval/disapproval for the "Christian Conservative" political movement, so between that and self-identification, we may eventually get a useful range. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 09:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's previous title was "Racism, Multiculturalism, Apartheid, and Indigenous Rights" - as can be seen from the talkpage section below. This is clearly more relevant to its attitudes towards diversity than its practice of diversity. Likewise the deleted, unsourced material covered mainly the CR's attitudes to "Multiculturalism, Apartheid, and Indigenous Rights" rather than its practice of them. Hrafn42 09:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Christian Right and "highly active members"
The problem with including statements about lower racial prejudice of "highly active members" is that these members will be heavily represented on the Christian Left as well as the Christian Right. Given the Christian Left's historic links to the Civil Rights movement, it is to be expected that they would yield a lower than average level of racial prejudice. This will tend to lower the average racial prejudice of "highly active members", quite independently of the Christian Right. This would appear to be a far less controversial interpretation of the facts than that, while "moderately active" fundamentalists and the CR's leadership are racially prejudiced, quite anomalously, highly active fundamentalists are not. Hrafn42 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We are likely to continue to disagree about how controversial it would be to assume the CR is more racist than the general population (considering the various popularity metrics of the CR in Pew's 2006 and 2004 surveys), but we can start by trying to agree on the nature of the scholarship. Generally speaking, I read P&S as a direct refutation of P&B's findings of prejudice among "fundamentalists" (a.k.a. G&A's "moderately active" group). I read Wilcox as a finding that most studies of fundamentalists or evangelicals (specifically including P&B) use no standardized definitions/criteria, so they tend to rely on mutually incompatible evidence, leaving studies with few reasonable operational strategies than to gather their own data-- an observation echoed in P&S, and to a somewhat lesser extent, in G&A. P&S dodged the obstacle by adopting P&B's own definition, thus guaranteeing compatibility. If I understand correctly, Altemeyer's work extrapolates any sociological conclusions outward from the anecdotal psychology of individuals without gathering new evidence on representative populations, so it should probably be in a separate paragraph, and its methods clarified. It would seem that the overall effect of the scholarship in front of us is that fundamentalists and evangelicals (who are not identical to the CR) are probably no more racist than the general population, but they are difficult to study because it is difficult to assimilate data from studies that define fundamentalism differently. When fundamentalist students do exhibit prejudices without reinforcement of racial identity, the psychology surrounding a "family religion" may have grown into a form of religious ethnocentrism and contributed to other prejudices.
 * I am not using "P&B's findings", so P&S is hardly on point. P&S offer not refutation of G&A.
 * No, but you are using P&B's definition of fundamentalism, which P&S used to disprove its findings, and which Wilcox rejected via P&S. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No I am not! I am only using P&B's summary of G&A's conclusion. Hrafn42 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a gross misrepresentation to claim an equality between "fundamentalists" & "G&A's 'moderately active' group"! G&A reviewed articles which measured both level of activity and fundamentalism as explanatory variables. By conflating the two, you demonstrate a very basic lack of understanding of these studies.
 * By using P&B's definition of fundamentalism at the same time you reject it, perhaps you can see that even if my own understanding isn't perfect, at least it's not self-contradictory. The criticism of P&B's definition of "fundamentalism" in P&S and Wilcox should be enough to avoid using any sentence in P&B that contains the word "fundamentalist" without mentioning its usage of that word is flawed. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if I used P&B's definition of fundamentalism (and I don't'), this would be completely irrelevant to this point, which is that G&A does not conflate fundamentalism with "moderately active members" or activity level of members generally (nor does any other study I have seen) -- they treat them as separate explanatory variables. Hrafn42 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wilcox's 'no standard definition' does not trump the fact that G&A found considerable agreement of conclusion. It is possible that, despite the lack of agreement, that differing definitions often don't change the results.
 * Among the many G&A cite as having agreement of conclusion are those it characterizes as "investigators have suggested that 'the more religious the more prejudiced' conclusion holds only when religion is insufficiently differentiated (eg, Allport and Ross, 1967; Dittes, 1969, 1971; Lenski, 1961; Spilka and Reynolds, 1965)." We may not need to quote that directly in the article, but we also cannot pretend it isn't part of the study.
 * This is again irrelevant to the point I am making. On a completely separate point, if the majority of the studies G&A reviewed exhibited this problem, it might render G&A's review problematic as being based solely on flawed studies. But this would not seem to be the case (as the flawed articles are only a very small minority of those being reviewed). Hrafn42 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P&S" didn't "dodge" anything. P&S were explicitly part of Wilcox's "spate of research activities" lacking a "consensus". In fact the reason I found Wilcox was because it cited P&S. To pretend otherwise is a misrepresentation.
 * It was part of the study because it had to use P&B's definition of fundamentalism in order to test P&B's conclusions emperically, but didn't agree with that definition; so it was right on-point for Wilcox. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not "understand correctly", Altemeyer does not "extrapolate[] any sociological conclusions outward from the anecdotal psychology of individuals without gathering new evidence on representative populations".
 * Although I admit I might be slightly wrong here, I humbly suggest re-reading the article, or explaining exactly why you disagree. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are not "slightly wrong", you are completely off-base. Altemeyer has done an enormous amount of empirical work, including formulating a number of measures that have achieved widespread acceptance in this field. Hrafn42 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your conclusion that "fundamentalists and evangelicals (who are not identical to the CR) are probably no more racist than the general population" is not supported by the evidence.
 * You have omitted how I qualifyied that statement, and thus quoted me out of context. The support for that particular part of the conclusion is G&A, P&S, and Wilcox. But in my conclusion, I went on to qualify that finding, so please reread. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I omitted the qualifier because it was not relevant. Qualifier or not, your statement directly contradicted the findings of the vast majority of research in this field. Hrafn42 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would conclude by suggesting that you cease and desist mischaracterising research that you clearly have no understanding of. Hrafn42 12:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I invite third parties to review our discussion and arbitrate which of us is mischaracterizing the research more egregiously. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, the current mash-up juxtaposing a referential clause from G&A's own conclusion after a summary from a different source is significantly out-of-context and introduces unacceptible bias as currently arranged. Even though the first part of the review's conclusions may not seem to relate specifically to the CR, P&S proved P&B wrong about the conclusions it gleaned from G&A's data and elsewhere, and Wilcox called into question P&B's style of redefining "moderately active" as "fundamentalist". So, it would seem to be least prejudicial to remove P&B altogether; or if you still think we need to include it regardless of its weaknesses, then we must accurately characterize it as having been superceded by P&S and Wilcox. At the very least, the remaining phrase from the G&A sentence, "These conclusions held regardless of when the studies were conducted, from whom the data came, the region where the data were collected, or the type of prejudice studied", simply cannot be used without the specific wording of the report's own conclusions to which it uniquely refers as "these". G&A did not write that sentence with the understanding it would refer to anything other than their own conclusions as they stated them. Agreed? --Anoop 74.192.49.12 10:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Using P&B's summarisation of G&A's conclusions, along with G&A's introductory sentence describing its conclusions (not "a referential clause from G&A's own conclusion") is only "out of context" if you can prove that P&B misrepresent G&A's conclusions. Unless and until either you do this, or somebody comes up with a copy of G&A's original conclusions, P&B remain a reliable source for these conclusions. I rather doubt if P&B would have passed peer review if its introductory sentence contained a misrepresentation of a major review of the subject.
 * You have done this yourself when you cited G&A. To avoid any confusion, here's G&A abstract again, with my emphasis: --Anoop


 * Originally, we used the abstract's opening clause (in italics) without attribution (it has later been reworded), replaced the bolded section with P&B's fallaciously-defined usage of "fundamentalism" after it, followed it with the second italicised clause, then characterized the study as if the second bolded section weren't central to its findings. When the abstract says These it is directly refering to preceeding portion of the abstract, particularly the part in bold. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you any evidence to suggest that the CR is, on average, more "intrinsically religious" (as opposed to extrinsically religious) or "theologically discriminating" than Christians generally? They are clearly not, on average, more "nonfundamentalistic". P&B's summary does not contradict any of this, it merely highlights the issue most relevant to the CR: fundamentalism. Yes, it would be better to quote G&A's conclusions on the subject directly. However we do not have access to its concluding paragraph, so G&A's summary is the most comprehensive source available to us as to G&A's findings on the relationship between fundamentalism and prejudice. Hrafn42 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P&S did not "proved P&B wrong about the conclusions it gleaned from G&A's data". G&A was a review article, so it contained no raw data! The "data" that P&S talk about them using from "other studies" is likely the results What P&S did was to repeat P&B's methodology with differing results from P&B, which in no way refutes G&A.
 * Um, if I insinuated P&S refuted G&A (which I don't think I did), I didn't intend to. P&S refuted P&B and drew conclusions very similar to those of G&A. If I refered to G&A's data, it was an indirect reference; what I meant by "G&A's data" was "the same studies of data G&A reviewed".

Again, I would conclude by suggesting that you cease and desist mischaracterising research that you clearly have no understanding of. Hrafn42 12:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I invite third parties to review our discussion and arbitrate which of us is mischaracterizing the research more egregiously. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn, it's been a blast, but I'll bow out for awhile, at your request, and to give others time weigh in. I'll continue monitoring this process, but I won't be responding as much. As a friendly "heads-up", I've been quite patient to this point, but don't expect others to be; the final version of this section is unlikely to resemble the work you're doing now, so FWIW, if you want to avoid wasting time in a fruitless pursuit, I'd suggest working on something else. Best wishes. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, as somebody who has a background in statistics and at least some experience in reading academic literature, I have found interacting with you to be deeply frustrating. I have spent more time correcting you on the inter-relationship between these articles than on substantive issues as to their content. Admittedly somebody with a background in Social Sciences, and particularly anybody with access to the full contents of these articles (as opposed to just the first page, including abstract), could probably blow away everything that I've said. Hrafn42 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat deceptive to claim that you are merely "giv[ing] others time to weigh in" -- in fact you have asked two fellow CR&Racism-whitewashers, JimZDP & Pollinator to weigh in. Hrafn42 05:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering I wrote "I invite third parties to review our discussion and arbitrate" in bold, not just once but twice, I fail to see how subsequently being true to my word could be construed as "deceptive". User:JimZDP (who discussed the section below) and User:Pollinator (a member of WP:BIAS who has stepped in here before) are clearly not "whitewashers". I saw how many Wikipedians have warned you repeatedly that using Wikipedia to mailgn others is unacceptible; yet you have persisted, even to the point of being blocked, in the past. Consider that it might be time to turn over a new leaf. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, well "reality has a well-known liberal bias" -- so it's probably a good idea to get the Bias Police in to remove it from the article. I was merely pointing out that your open general appeal to (presumably neutral) "third parties" came with a couple of discrete appeals to specific parties with a history of supporting your vision for the article. It's funny that those who make the biggest deal about "malign[ing] others" often tend to be the ones who aren't above a bit of blatant maligning themselves. The admin who blocked me had previously made a baseless accusation against me of canvassing, in the middle of my (ultimately successful) appeal of a biased decision that admin had made. Truth is always an absolute defence against accusations of libel or slander. Hrafn42 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Libel and slander are crimes, and I didn't suggest you should do jail time. What I meant was to be more WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. To be clear, I'm just following the standard WP:DR process. Under "Second Step", it says, "A simple solution to a dispute is to stop having it — by leaving the article and/or bringing in an outside editor." I stopped editing the article after being repeatedly reverted a few days ago. Then, I was careful to craft my messages to others as a legitimate "friendly notice" under WP:CANVAS: limited, neutral, nonpartisan, open, and to "editors who substantively edited or discussed the article". I picked JimZDP because he seems to have discussed this section the most, and Pollinator because he posted here and is on the WP:BIAS project, which is tasked with eliminating white male bias from WP, so presumably would know if allegations of "whitewashing" are legitimate in this case. Once other participants in this article have weighed in without resolving the dispute, the next step would be "4.1 Discuss with third parties" via options like WP:3O, in which third opinions should come from those who haven't yet participated in the article, but are authorities on the topic. --Anoop 74.192.49.12 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The term "Christian Right" is widely used in scholarship and journalism. There are a handful of people who object to it. The suggestion that there is a major controversy over this term is simply false. To elevate this controversy into the lead is dubious at best, and represents an example of "Undue Weight" (WP:UW given to a position that is actually quite marginal. AT the very least, the contention needs to be cited. I note here that it was I who added the cite to the claim that I think is specious, so to suggest I am POV pushing is really quite absurd.--Cberlet 14:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Chip, I do not object to the term at all. I only want to see an honest and neutral point of view taken.  That will necessarily entail documenting the controversy that surrounds the term.  True, there is reputable scholarship on the topic, but it is also true that the majority of popular usages are contentious, pejorative, or defamatory.  Also, contrary to some of your suggestions, I am not a Christian Right kind of guy, but just a middle of the roader who can see both sides of the arguments but enjoys a good energetic debate.  I do believe that such debates clarify and improve the quality of thought over time.   Being an energetic moderate, I am used to dodging rocks so I don't take it personally.  :-)))  In sum, the work here needs more critical examination and healthy debate, however uncomfortable that may be.   TheModerate 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes Original Research WP:OR. I already found cites to support the same claim you are making, and I added them to the article to replace a fact challenge. What I did was proper.  What you are doing by tallying up Google hits and then judging for yourself when they are perjorative, is original research.  I have asked other editors to weigh in on this disagreement WP:RFC.--Cberlet 15:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding.  Summarizing documented sources is not original research.  particularly because, you did not answer the question about including specific quotes instead.  That would make the point quite nicely if you don't like my labels.  I included the summary paragraph because it belongs in the article abstract.  Without this balance the abstract is bias ridden.  As for blowing Google off,  in the spirit of scientific inquiry I suggest you should repeat the experiment summarized to see for yourself what is shows today.   TheModerate 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not change the subject of a discussion section when I have told you I have filed a Request for Comments WP:RFC. Please do not assume this discussion has ended--it has not. Please wait a few days for more comments from other editors.--Cberlet 20:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I came here from the RfC page. First of all, the term "Christian Right" is only used as a pejorative by people who disagree with the subject of it - this is an extremely weak type of pejorative.  It's like calling someone "a red-head" as an insult; the only result it is insulting, is because the person using it does not like red-heads.  Similar statements can be made for virtually anything - especially religious or political indicator like "liberal", "Jew", "Democrat", "Republican", etc etc.  As you can see, none of these articles address the pejorative use, because there is really nothing to say about it.  Some use it as pejorative because they don't like the people who use the term.  That is it.  There's really nothing more to say, and you don't need to address this unless it becomes a notable problem - in which case, reliable sources need to be provided demonstrating that.  I'm sorry, but it does constitute a form of original research to manually tally results and then determine whether or not they are pejorative in nature to establish the existence of a controversy - as a matter of fact, a good rule of thumb for WP:OR is whether or not you have to perform some judgment on collected sources to get a statement.  If this really is a controversy, one should be able to point to a WP:RS which talks about it.  Until then, it's not.  -Haemo 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also responding to the RfC and would generally agree with the above statement. The term can refer to a category or a pejorative depending on context. In both cases it should not be misinterpreted that all right-wingers are Christians or vice versa. To suggest otherwise in one's tone or choice of words would be a misuse of the term. It may be a good idea to provide a comment on the article that the phrase is sometimes used demeaningly, but that goes for all political stances (examples: "you socialist," "you commie," "you liberal," "you hippie," etc.)Youngidealist 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The term is also deceptive because it suggests that all Christians who consider themselves 'conservative' are members of this group. Ramorum (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Right-wing electoral activism section
I have tagged this section because it stands out from the rest of the text as smacking of original research. It lacks any citations. Also, the stylistic tone, whilst fine in itself, is different from the rest of the article which gives unevenness when reading. It might also benefit from a general clean-up to add proper subheadings in a consistent fashion. Agrestis 17:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the article be named Christian Right with a capital R?
The term is frequently capitalized in the media, as if it were a proper name for an actual organization. True, Christian Right redirects here, but having "Christian right" as the title with "Christian Right" in the first paragraph is a bit jarring. d a v i d w r 09f9(talk) 23:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It should probably be capitalized. It's not officially an "organization", no, but it is a proper name in the sense that it has been applied by the media and others as a name. Moreover, the group does not appear to be merely the intersection of the two groups, the Christians and the 'right'-wing, either. Ramorum (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
“The "Christian Right" as a politically active 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.”

I believe this really needs rewording. Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and Fundamentalist Christianity cannot be all together placed at the end of any imaginary “theological conservatism” scale… Moreover, Pentecostalism should hardly be called a “theologically more conservative movement” in comparison to anything, for the question whether Pentecostalism has a theology at all is disputable in itself. (E.g. see: Jacobsen, Douglas G. Thinking in the Spirit : Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2003.) I suggest to delete the controversial parts, e.g.: "The "Christian Right" as a politically active social movement includes individuals from a wide variety of Christian traditions, such as Lutheranism, Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and Fundamentalist Christianity.” I've seen that this sentence has already provoked criticism on the talk page. I think it's about time to improve it. Eydeet2884 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Racism, Multiculturalism, Apartheid, and Indigenous Rights section =
This section starts by saying that it is difficult to pinpoint issues of race among the Christian Right, and then in the remainder of the paragraph cites evidence that race doesn't appear to be an issue, and that historically and recently, in the U.S. at least, the Christian Right has been opposed to racism. The only thing that appears to be "difficult" is the author's apparent (and incorrect) unstated premise - namely that "The Christian Right is conservative, and conservatives hold racist views, therefore the Christian Right must be racist." I could be wrong, but that appears to be the only rational explanation for such an inconsistent paragraph.

I note that the section has been tagged since October 6 as not citing references for its assertions. Nine months is more than adequate for the author to find sources in support of such a position. I suggest that he or she do so, or in 48 hours, that section should/will be deleted. Statements, whether explicit or implicit, suggesting that a group is racist, without any evidence of such are not scholarly and have no place here. I checked the archives, and did not see this issue raised and resolved through discussion. Therefore, if the author can't cite good evidence supporting the position, I'm going to remove it.JimZDP 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the section needs a rewrite, not deletion. There is a strong vein of racism running through some, though probably not all, strains of the Christian Right. Even in the mainstream they are obvious, e.g. the former racial policies of Bob Jones University (which ended only in 2000). Further out onto the fringe, you have the likes of the Christian Identity movement. This should be documented. It might however be appropriate to reduce the current section back to a stub. Hrafn42 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to refer to the two examples you chose. Bob Jones pretty much does its own thing - it's not really part of any political movement. And the lunatic fringes like Christian Identity would be universally denied by all the leaders of the Christian Right. Of course critics always like to propagandize based on the lunatic fringes (of any movement) to demonize the whole. In the American South, where racism has been a part of the culture, and in conservative churches has been common, it still occurs, but segregation is breaking down, especially in Evangelical/Pentecostal churches. Pollinator 00:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did not delete the section, but it still needs references. However, I did remove/change some of the more inflammatory language in the title ("Racism") and the inconsistent first sentence. I also changed the beginning of the second sentence to start "Members of the Christian Right..."

That said, the section still needs to cite its sources. Bob Jones former segregation policies are hardly relevant now, even if Bob Jones wasn't, at best, on the fringes. The same with the Christian Identity Churches. They have never been acknowledged by any leadership of they Christian Right. There are a white supremacist group that simply appropriated the name "Christian." And while many churches in the south were, and some may still be, somewhat racist, the Christian Right is hardly confined to the south, as anybody who has ever been to Colorado Springs can attest.

I don't believe the section really has much of a place in the article to begin with, so I'm not going to do the research for appropriate cites. However, if nobody wants to do that, then the section should be removed at some time. JimZDP 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "They have never been acknowledged by any leadership of they Christian Right." David Barton is generally acknowledged as a leader of the Christian Right:
 * Further confirmation of this at.
 * "There are a white supremacist group that simply appropriated the name 'Christian.'" "Peter J. Peters is the pastor of the LaPorte Church of Christ in LaPorte, Colorado, and is evangelistic head of Scriptures for America Ministries Worldwide, an international outreach ministry dedicated to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to revealing to the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and kindred peoples of the world their true Biblical identity." If they are forming formal churches and ministries then they are appropriating far more than the name "Christian." The Christian Identity movement traces its theological roots to the British Israelism movement of the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Another later precursor was the Nazi Positive Christianity movement.
 * Hrafn42 05:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read the articles in your links (and did a little net research as well). Let me see if I understand your position. Because David Barton, - 1) whose shtick is to argue against the separation of church and state; 2) whose support from recognized leaders of the Christian Right such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell has been exclusively for his writings and lectures against separation of church and state; 3) to who no racist statements have ever been attributed; 4) whose own website “wallbusters.com” has links to Black History scholarly and non-racist websites that contain things such as African-American congressmen’s speeches during Reconstruction that argued for the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1875; and 5) who, in fact, in 1998 as vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party, along with party chairman Susan Weddington issued a public apology to African-Americans for the deprivations and oppression of slavery and racism (see James Howard Gibbons, The Houston Chronicle, June 22, 1998), - 16 years ago spoke on the subject of separation of church and state to two groups associated with Pete Peters, and later stated that he did not know of the racist ideologies of those groups as the subject never came up, THAT is evidence that he (and by implication, other leaders of the Christian Right) endorses the racist ideologies of those groups, thereby moving them into the Christian Right of this article? I’m sorry, but that evidence is less than compelling.

It requires a weak inference upon a weaker inference to get there. It goes like this Fact: in 1991 David Barton spoke twice, against separation of church and state, to groups who have racist ideologies. Weak inference: because he spoke there we can infer that - despite his denials and subsequent non-racist statements and actions - he really knew what they were all about, so his appearance there is an endorsement of their racist beliefs. Inference upon inference: because other leaders of the Christian Right endorse Barton’s opposition to separation of church and state, we can infer they also endorse his inferred endorsement of Christian Identity racism. And finally inference upon inference upon inference: Because we can infer that recognized leaders of the Christian Right agree with Barton’s inferred endorsement of Christian Identity racism, we can conclude that the Christian Identity churches are part of the Christian Right that is the subject of this article.

In critical thinking, that’s called logical fallacy. At law it would be called “failure to meet the burden of proof.” It certainly is not a competent reference to assert that the Christian Identity churches could be members of the Christian Right that is the subject of this article.JimZDP 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42 03:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that you mention Pat Robertson, I would note that he has himself been frequently accused of racism.
 * 2) Groups on the fringe of a movement frequently get limited or no acknowledgement by the leadership of mainstream groups within that movement, which perhaps explains why Barton disassociated himself from them upon rising to prominence within the mainstream Christian Right. Why would we consider a movement that is both (1) right-wing and (2) explicitly Christian to not be part of the Christian Right?
 * 3) If you think I am employing some logical fallacy, please point out which from this List of fallacies.

"Given that you mention Pat Robertson, I would note that he has himself been frequently accused of racism"

If I understand Wikipedia, encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Accusations do not verify anything other than somebody accused Pat Robertson of racism. Anybody with a microphone, a reporter in front of them, or even a knowledge of HTML and a server can accuse. The burden is on the proponent of a position to prove.

"Groups on the fringe of a movement frequently get limited or no acknowledgement by the leadership of mainstream groups within that movement, which perhaps explains why Barton disassociated himself from them upon rising to prominence within the mainstream Christian Right."

I gave you good evidence that Barton, by word and deed, is not a racist (which I did not have to do as I'm not making the accusation of racism), and that his association with acknowledged leaders of the Christian Right - Falwell, Robertson, et al, is through their endorsement of his position that the constitution does not mandate separation of church and state. You respond with mere speculation that as he became more prominent he distanced himself from fringe group's racist beliefs. That's called "moving the goalpost." Speculation is not evidence. Additionally, you are making an assumption that based on TWO events (speaking to the groups) some sort of association developed.

"If you think I am employing some logical fallacy, please point out which from this..."

Conceding for the sake of argument, and I do not, that the Christian Identity movement is part of the Christian Right that appears to be the subject of this article, on the main issue (that of race and the Christian Right), you are making an association fallacy: A (Barton) believes P (the constitution does not mandate separation of church and state); B's (Christian Identity Movement) believe P (the constitution does not mandate separation of church and state) and Q (minorities are inferior); Therefore, A (Barton) believes Q (minorities are inferior). It's also a spurious relationship.

"Why would we consider a movement that is both (1) right-wing and (2) explicitly Christian to not be part of the Christian Right?"

That's a continuum fallacy. You appear to be trying to argue that two groups are not distinct because there is a continuum between them. It's also a Hasty Generalization. For good or for ill, some words or phrases have an accepted meaning that is not precisely or exactly what the word or phrases mean. "Anti-semitic" is an example. In modern usage, it means prejudice against the Jewish People. However, the term Semite actually refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes Arabs, Jews, some Africans, and, in a religious context, includes Christians, Jews, and Muslims. That is the case with the term Christian Right. If people were asked to name leaders of the Christian Right, names such as Robertson, Falwell, Jay Seculow and the ACLJ, etc. would be the ones you would likely hear. Pete Peters would likely be known only to his followers or others whole observe the Christian Identity movement.

There are a number of good authorities (e.g. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/, and http://www.religioustolerance.org/) that discuss Christian Identity, and they treat it as an entirely different entity than other groups such as conservative protestants, Christians generally, etc.

I'm not disputing that there are racists who are members of what is commonly known as the Christian Right. Indeed, there are racists along from the left to the right. I simply believe that if one is to associate racism as a central tenant to this group, then there be cited good references. JimZDP 19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that racism is "central tenant to this group" -- merely that "There is a strong vein of racism running through some, though probably not all, strains of the Christian Right." Hrafn42 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Should conservative European Christian Democrat political parties be listed as 'Christian Right' organisations in this article?
Christian democracy Many of these parties, in addition to being explicitly Christian, have conservatism listed in their articles as one of their headline ideologies (e.g. Christian Democratic Party (Norway), Christian Democratic Union (Germany)). Hrafn42 05:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian right
Although [[Christian right states:

..the New Zealand section appears to be on the subject of "what New Zealand's CR movement hasn't been able to prevent." The only CR person/organisation mentioned is Brian Tamaki & his Destiny Church, and then only to make the point that they were ineffective in preventing civil unions. I would suggest that one of two things need to be done: Hrafn42 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Nobody seems especially interested in this section, so I'm moving it here:
 * 1) decide that NZ has insufficient of a CR movement to be worthy of inclusion (I suspect it may have less of one than several countries that don't get a section), and delete the section; or
 * 2) completely rewrite the section to focus more on what little CR movement NZ has, rather than almost solely on the social changes that they have been unable to prevent.

If you are interested in the inclusion of an NZ section, feel free to put up an argument here for its reinclusion or, better yet, write yourself a decent section on the subject from scratch. Hrafn42 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced information from the article
I removed the following section because it had no references and had be tagged since May 2007. Feel free to readd it with sources: {{hidden|unsourced|2===Australia===

People

 * Tony Abbott Liberal Party Politician, Committed Roman Catholic
 * Kevin Andrews Liberal Party Politician, Committed Roman Catholic
 * Nick Minchin Liberal Party Politician
 * Andrew Evans Family First Politician, Senior Pastor of Paradise Assemblies of God Community Church Adelaide
 * Steve Fielding Family First Politician
 * Guy Barnett Liberal Party Politician
 * John Howard, (The Current Prime Minister), a conservative Anglican
 * David Clarke Liberal Party Politician, member of Roman Catholic group Opus Dei
 * Alexander Downer Liberal Party Politician
 * John Anderson National Party Politician
 * Mark Vaile National Party Politician, Committed Roman Catholic
 * Barnaby Joyce National Party Politician, Committed Roman Catholic
 * The Most Reverend Peter Jensen, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney (a Conservative Evangelical Anglican)
 * Cardinal George Pell, Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney
 * B.A. Santamaria, founder of the Democratic Labour Party and the National Civic Council (NCC)
 * The Governor-General, His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, a conservative Anglican
 * Brian Houston Senior Pastor of Hillsong Assemblies of God Church, Sydney
 * Jim Wallace Managing Director Australian Christian Lobby
 * Bill Muehlenberg Spokesman for many Australian Christian organisations including Focus on the Family in Australia.
 * Rev. Fred Nile Leader of Christian Democratic Party, Anti-gay Activist
 * Sen. Brian Harradine
 * Sen. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
 * Sen. Eric Abetz

In Australia, the Liberal Party is considered to be the main politically Conservative party. It and minor parties that include the National Party, Family First and the Christian Democratic Party make up the highly influential politically conservative voice in Australia. These parties have been successful in banning both gay marriage and euthanasia in Australia as well as blocking moves by opposing groups such as the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens who wanted to setup heroin injecting rooms and legislate for same-sex civil unions. They also have a history of financially assisting faith-based schools and Christian movements such as the booming Hillsong Church of the Assemblies of God.

Organizations

 * Assemblies of God
 * Australian Christian Lobby
 * Australian Family Association
 * Christian Democratic Party (Australia)
 * Democratic Labour Party
 * Family First
 * Festival of Light
 * Forward in Faith
 * National Civic Council (NCC)
 * Right to Life Australia
 * Salt Shakers

People

 * Ken Campbell
 * Craig Chandler
 * Michael Coren
 * Stockwell Day
 * Tristan Emmanuel
 * Cheryl Gallant
 * George Grant
 * Stephen Harper
 * Russ Hiebert
 * David Mainse
 * Charles McVety
 * Pat O'Brien
 * John Pacheco
 * Darrel Reid
 * Heather Stilwell
 * David Sweet
 * Merle Terlesky
 * Maurice Vellacott
 * Mark Warawa
 * Elsie Wayne
 * Bill Whatcott
 * Randy White

Organizations

 * Campaign Life Coalition
 * Christian Heritage Party of Canada
 * Defend Marriage Coalition
 * Focus on the Family Canada
 * Institute for Canadian Values
 * REAL Women of Canada

People

 * Brigitte Bardot
 * Christine Boutin
 * Denys Cochin
 * Francois Ducaud-Bourget
 * Marcel Lefebvre
 * Jean Ousset
 * Jacques Trémollet de Villers
 * Christian Vanneste

Organizations

 * Alliance pour les droits de la vie
 * Cité catholique
 * Forum of Social Republicans
 * Society of St. Pius X

Organizations

 * Christian Democratic Union (CDU — Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands)
 * Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CSU – Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern)
 * Family Party of Germany
 * Party of Bible-abiding Christians
 * Beter im Aufbruch
 * Deutsche Zentrumspartei
 * Evangelische Allianz Deutschland
 * Pax Europa e.V.
 * Partei Bibeltreuer Christen (PBC)
 * German Theocons
 * Trägerkreis "40 Tage beten und fasten für unser Land"


 * Wort und Wissen

Media:
 * idea spektrum
 * KATH.NET
 * Medienmagazin "pro"
 * Salz und Licht (PBC)
 * Vers1

People

 * Patricia Bartlett(1926-2000)
 * Graham Capill
 * Keith Hay(1917-1997)
 * Bruce Logan
 * Ewen McQueen
 * Connie Purdue(1912-2000)
 * Marilyn Pryor(1937-2005)
 * Brian Tamaki
 * Anthony Walton
 * Thomas Stafford Williams

Organizations

 * Christian Heritage New Zealand(defunct)
 * Coalition of Concerned Citizens(defunct)
 * Destiny Church
 * Exclusive Brethren
 * Operation Rescue New Zealand(defunct)
 * Right to Life New Zealand
 * Society for Promotion of Community Standards
 * Future New Zealand
 * Voice for Life

People

 * John Beyer
 * Stephen Green
 * Peter Hitchens
 * Edward Leigh
 * Elizabeth Moberly
 * Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford (deceased)
 * Ian Paisley
 * Margaret Thatcher
 * Monty White
 * Mary Whitehouse (deceased)
 * Ann Widdecombe
 * Richard Williamson

Organizations
}}
 * CARE
 * Christian Institute
 * Christian Voice
 * The Cornerstone Group of the Conservative Party
 * Forward in Faith
 * LIFE
 * Scottish Christian Party
 * SPUC

I would suggest that the editor who removed this needs to read WP:NPOVFAQ. The substantiation for the presence of many (and probably most) of these groups and individuals on this list will be contained in the linked-to articles. Expecting this substantiation to be rehashed here for this list would seem to be unreasonable. It makes more sense to -tag those on the list that either don't have an article, or whose article does not make a prima facie case for inclusion on this list. HrafnTalkStalk 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, this information would probably be better served by a category (with subcategories by country & into people/organisations, than by this excessively long list). This would also put the explicit onus on the articles' contents to support inclusion in such a category. HrafnTalkStalk 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't thik it is a goof idea to insist that the entry text has to support every major figure in a social or political movement, but some sort of cite is where a number of similar pages have arrived at as a solution, so the deletions for failing to source were quite proper. Some editors spent a lot of effort to supply cites for the U.S. list.--Cberlet 11:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That solution is far less practical outside the US, for the simple reason that the Christian Right is far smaller, less organised, and less written about -- particularly as a collective movement. Therefore you are highly unlikely to get 18 substantiations off a single citation (or even more than one on a regular basis). HrafnTalkStalk 13:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply having an organisation that is both Christian and Right Wing, doesn't mean they're part of the Christian right. That might sound stupid, but plenty of Christians who vote for general right wing candidates in whatever field, would agree with the remarks and comments made by actual Christian Right followers/leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I think it would be best to include remarks about these organisations being described as "Christian Right" groups.  CO 2 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Given this, how are we meant to demarcate the Christian Right, except as organisations/individuals that are "both Christian and Right Wing"? Excluding this, we appear to lack a meaningful definition. I would suspect that many of the more sane people on the Christian Right would not "agree with the remarks and comments made by ... Pat Robertson" -- for the simple reason that he frequently comes across as being off his meds. I definitely can remember coming across a British (or it might have been Caribbean) conservative evangelical who thought that way. Likewise Catholic and Lutheran members of the Christian Right are likely to disagree with both Robertson and Falwell on a number of points due to theological differences. HrafnTalkStalk 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Style guidelines & embedded lists in this article
Quite apart from the above disagreement over whether elements in the above list are substantiated or not, there is the style issue of having large embedded lists in the article. Alternatives for 'Notable persons and organizations said to be members of the Christian Right' would include: Further discussion of the alternatives can be found here.
 * 1) Creating a stand-alone list (e.g. called List of people and organisations in the Christian right);
 * 2) Creating a category (i.e. Category:Christian right, presumably with sub-categories by country); or
 * 3) both.

The section entitled 'Moral Issues and General Beliefs' should probably either get turned into a stand-alone list or converted into prose. HrafnTalkStalk 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

i want to include this in the article...
I was wondering if I could include this for christian right regarding homosexuality from :

Some conservatives would prefer that homosexual behavior be re-criminalized.

In addition, I want to mention Westboro Bapitist Church, since they are Christian conservatives who want to get rid of gays. --Dark paladin x (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ReligiousTolerance.org is primarily a one-person website and several of its articles are dubious in terms of analysis. I don not consider it a reliable website on the topic.  There are plenty of real published books that can be cited. As for Westboro Bapitist Church. even some on the Christian Right find them offensive. They are not typical of the Christian Right.--Cberlet (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian right, Wicca & separation of powers
Wiccans have also experienced difficulties in administering and receiving prison ministry, although not in the UK of recent times. In 1985, as a result of Dettmer v. Landon [617 F. Supp. 592 (D.C. Va 1985)], the District Court of Virginia ruled that Wicca is a legally recognised religion and is afforded all the benefits accorded to it by law. This was affirmed a year later by Judge John D. Butzner, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F. 2d 929 (4th Cir. 1986)]. Nevertheless, Wiccans are sometimes still stigmatised in America, and many remain secretive about their beliefs. In September 1985 some conservative legislators introduced legislation designed to take away the rights of Wiccans. These ultimately died with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.

Also in 1985, conservative legislators introduced three pieces of legislation designed to take away the tax-exempt status of Wiccans. The first one was House Resolution (H.R.) 3389, introduced on 19 September 1985 by Congressman Robert S. Walker (R-Pennsylvania), which would have amended to the United States Internal Revenue Code that any organisation which promotes witchcraft would not be exempt from taxation. On the other side of Congress, Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina ) added Amendment 705 to H.R. 3036, "The Treasury, Postal, and General Government Appropriations Bill for 1986", which similarly stated that organisations promoting witchcraft would not be eligible for tax-exempt status. After being ignored for a time, it was attached to H.R. 3036 by a unanimous voice vote of the senators. Congressman Richard T. Schulze (R-Pennsylvania) introduced substantially the same amendment to the Tax Reform Bill of 1985. When the budget subcommittee met on 30 October, the Helms Amendment was thrown out as it was not considered germane to the bill. Following this, Schulze withdrew his amendment from the Tax Reform Bill, leaving only H.R. 3389, the Walker Bill. Joe Barton (R-Texas) was attracted to become a co-sponsor of this bill on 14 November 1985. The Ways and Means Committee set aside the bill and quietly ignored it, and the bill was allowed to die with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.

In 2002, Cynthia Simpson of Chesterfield County, Virginia submitted an application to be invited to lead prayer at the local Board of Supervisors meetings, but in a response was told that because the views of Wicca were not "consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition," her application had been denied. After the Board reviewed and affirmed their policy, Simpson took the case to the U.S. District Court of Virginia, which held that the Board had violated the Establishment Clause by advancing limited sets of beliefs. The Board appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2005 reversed the ruling based in part on the Board having modified its policy, directing clerics to avoid invoking the name of Jesus. On October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Simpson, effectively ending the debate. -- Religious discrimination against Neopagans

On separation of state and religion, there is already considerable information linking this to the Christian right in, e.g., David Barton & Dominionism (which I will reference in the article).

I would also direct editors to WP:NPOVFAQ. HrafnTalkStalk 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would further point out that Religious discrimination against Neopagans is wikilinked as "Opposition" in "Opposition to Wicca and other Neopagan faiths receiving equal recognition and freedom of religious expression". To make it more obvious, I have removed the pipe and put it into a "( see ...)". HrafnTalkStalk 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced?
[Moved from [[User talk:Hrafn] ]

This is regarding recent edits at Christian right. The original text was, as you say, unbalanced. My edits make it not only more accurate but adds additional information to clarify. As it stood before my first edit (and after your revert), the text was biased and portrayed the entire "Christian right" in a light that is simply not true and not consistent with their opinions. As you can see even from the two references I added, two men considered prominent leaders in the "Christian Right" do not reject completely the idea of a 'separation of church and state'. The issue here is more subtle than that -- the nature of that separation, not its existence, is at question.

As I was in the middle of adding more information when you made your edit, and as you added no information and only reverted back to the original biased and over-general text, I've restored my edit as well as adding the additional information I was writing before the edit conflict. Ramorum (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Christian right isn't merely "accused" of opposing the seperation of church and state, they flat out, explicitly oppose it -- the cited quote from Huckabee was of him suggesting changing the Constitution to remove it. And Barton did not merely say that "separation is a one-directional wall" he lied about Jefferson saying it, then lied about lying about it. The pseudo-separation that they are suggesting is a meaningless 'protection' -- it would amount to establishment of the majority (or likely most-politically-organised) religion and curtailment of religious freedom for minorities who were side-lined by this. It is exactly what the First Amendment was attempting to prevent. HrafnTalkStalk 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong, they don't, and you're completely ignoring the two references I cited which prove you wrong. Whether Barton lied or not does not change the fact that he said it. Saying "separation is a one-directional wall" is explicitly accepting that separation exists and making an interpretation about what type of separation exists. You are missing a subtle distinction here which is very commonly overlooked, but it is very clear. Ramorum (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No I am not. Given that numerous court cases (including SCOTUS cases, I think) have found civil servants displaying the 10 commandments to be establishment of religion, Pat Robertson's statements are self-contradictory. HrafnTalkStalk 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not merely a "pseudo-separation" and it does allow a majority to establish its religion by government force. The statement "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" means just that. Congress shall make no such law, regardless of even a 99.99% majority who wants such a law. Pat Robertson has quoted that and accepted it. Yes, on that same page that I refer to, Pat Robertson says "There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. It doesn't exist.", but that is his interpretation. In my opinion, he's likely saying it that way to garner attention. The fact is, he recognizes the First Amendment and accepts it. Whether he calls it a "separation" or not is not the issue (although it is an issue). The fact is that some, including Thomas Jefferson, have called that a separation or a "wall". There are degrees and interpretations of separation, and it is blatantly dishonest to characterize the entire "Christian right" as being entirely opposed to the entire idea of separation. Please prove that Pat Robertson's statements are self-contradictory. It is circular reasoning to say that his comments were contradictory because of court cases, since Pat Robertson's comments were about those same court cases. Ramorum (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pat Robertson simply wants to have his cake and eat it. You have presented no indication that he does not oppose all meaningful separation. Your interpretation of his clear denunciation of it is tendentious in the extreme. Show me some prominent figures in the CR who don't merely pay lip-service to SoC&S, while promoting completely gutting it, and you might see some movement in the article. HrafnTalkStalk 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a judgment about Pat Robertson that may or may not be true. But it is your opinion, you have not proven it, and it is not consistent to WP:NPOV to make such unsubstantiated statements in an article. You are trying to make the article a denunciation of the "Christian Right" and your opinions are clearly biased. Please consider WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. To eliminate the statements of prominent members of this group and replace them with a blanket statement saying that "The Christian Right is opposed to separation of church and state" is clearly putting your POV into the article. You are welcome to include are documented evidence which proves that Pat Robertson was lying or that he doesn't really believe what he says in the article I referenced, but you have yet to do that. Ramorum (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider the controversial case where separation of church and state has come up, that of the Roy Moore who posted the Ten Commandments at his courthouse. Federal U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson issued his ruling declaring that the monument violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (from Roy Moore). Let's take a more careful look at the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Pat Robertson is correct, the First Amendment only says Congress shall make no law. Further, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and it can be argued that Roy Moore was prohibited from the free exercise of religion when he was ordered by federal courts to remove a monument from a court in which he had authority.

There are worse cases, as well, which don't involve a state judge. Students have been prohibited from praying in school, other religious monuments have been removed, etc. Remember that the First Amendment also protects the free exercise of religion.

There's a particularly relevant quote at Separation of church and state which might help your understanding: "There are inherent entanglements between the institutions of church and state, inasmuch as religious institutions and their adherents are a part of civil society." Note that this statement does not contradict the separation of church and state power or control as Jefferson and the other founders intended it.

It would be futile to assert that the authors and signers of the Constitution intended it to prohibit those in public office from acknowledging the authority of God. On the contrary, the Declaration of Independence explicitly states that God is the source of our rights -- the same rights which are protected by the Bill of Rights. This view is more consistent with that of the "Christian Right", the opinion that all authority and all rights ultimately derive from God.

John Adams, in his inaugural address, said, "..I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service...". A public figure stating his respect for Christianity or his commitment to God does not constitute the establishment of a religion.

Likewise, Thomas Jefferson in his second inaugural address, said "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."

George Washington said "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor". Was he opposed to the separation of church and state? Sir, it is you, not I, who are letting your bias show through in your editing. Ramorum (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to argue (from a bunch of cherry-picked quotes) how the First Amendment should be interpreted, then take it to Separation of church and state in the United States. Such arguments are completely off-topic here. HrafnTalkStalk 02:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just saw your latest edit, and I agree that that's better. Thanks. Ramorum (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Back at it again, I see. As it applies to all charitable organisations, whether religious or secular, it is not a separation issue.

According to a letter from IRS (found at ), "charities, educational institutions and religious organizations" are tax-exempt, not "charities, including religious organizations" but charities AND religious organizations. They still apply it directly to churches, and this is much more a violation of separation of church and state than those like Barton are advocating. Ramorum (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they're inconsistent on this, as elsewhere in the same letter they imply that "charitable organization" includes churches. Ramorum (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unworried as to what global term we use: "charities", "non-profit organisations", etc. The point is still the same -- that the tax law requirement is unrelated to whether they are religious or not, so it isn't a separation issue. If you want to search through tax law arcana for a more correct term, if one exists, then you are welcome to do so. HrafnTalkStalk 02:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't make it not a separation issue. Arguably, the federal government *can't* tax churches because of the First Amendment, which also would prohibit it from placing conditions on that untaxability. 68.90.225.3 (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm new at this it seems to me that while this debate is interesting, it has lost the goal of Wikipedia in its course. The section on separation of church and state seems to be extremely obtuse and a product of the debate, not the encyclopedia type article that is generally striven for on this site. I think that the quotes from huckabee, robertson, and barton are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I would li9ke to make this section much more succinct and just give a basic stance of the right and leave the more nuanced discussion to the page that deals with the separation of church and state. I realize that this is a complex issue and that it is multifaceted debate even within the Christian right but i feel that a shorter and more succinct section would serve this article better then the current section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvi267 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not against streamlining this section if you can simultaneously (1) avoid whitewashing the CR's rather sooty record on separation and (2) avoid WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, while still removing the direct quotes that previously had proved to be the only means of balancing these two issues. HrafnTalkStalk 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis, Contrasting viewpoints
Analysis section needs expansion and revision. Contrasting viewpoints section may be better off as a subheading and shifted up near the issues section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanH3 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC) In looking at the contrasting viewpoints section it doesnt seem to fit into issues. The information is valid but maby meant for another page. I would recoment we link contrasting viewpoints to another page instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean149 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Diversity, Apartheid, and Indigenous Rights section
I would like to try and revise this section because it is extrememly wordy and many of the things seem extraneous and irrelavent. First, I would like to suggest that the title of the section be changed to 'Racism' or 'Race'. Next, I understand that this section is controversial and has been talked about a lot on this page, but a lot of the stuff just seems unnecesarry. The first paragraph basically says that Christians were found in a study to be more ethnically prejudice than non-Christians. Is there a way that this can be more concise? Next, just because there are some prominent members of the Christian Right that have supported segregation in the past, it does not prove that the Christian Right supports segregation. Is it important to have the views of these prominent members in this section? Lastly, what is the point of the last sentence about there being 19% of African Americans who consider themselves a part of the Christian Right? Is that to say that the Christian Right cannot be racist because there are African Americans in the movement? I am trying to figure out a way to make this section better, easier to read, and relavent. Any suggestions would be great. Jme204 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is "extremely wordy" because of debates nitpicking over exactly what could be said within policy (controversial issues very frequently tend to be more wordy & oblique than uncontroversial ones for this reason). You can read the prior discussion at . The support for segregationism is documented as having outlasted segregation's downfall, hence the Paul M. Weyrich & Charles Marsh quotes. The Afriacan Americans in the CR was included by those wishing to minimise/rebute evidence of the CR's racism. HrafnTalkStalk 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I undertand your reasoning for why is wordy and I hav read the Christian Right and Segregation section. I was just looking for ways to make it less wordy and more concise.  Just because it is wordy now as a result of the nitpicking does not mean it can't be changed to be both concise and an answer to the nitpicking.  I agree that segregation has outlasted segregation's downfall, it just seems slightly confusing and does not seem to prove the point the way it is now.  Is there a way to keep what is there but just make it more clear and concise? Jme204 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but distilling of content that just leads to another dispute & more evidence piled in would be counter-productive, so I am requesting extreme care be exercised in the process. It also might be worth while looking at the history of the section, to see what concise statements provoked the last dispute. HrafnTalkStalk 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Middle East foreign policy section - QUESTION
Can someone shed some light on the issue of the belief that 2/3 of Jews will be killed at the Second Coming, and the rest will convert? Is this a belief held by some Christians, or is this taken from the plot of the Left Behind series?Set207 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition
The quotation regarding the Christian Coalition's attempts to broaden the message of the emovement is, "He aso stressed a broader agenda than the traditional hell-and-damnation stuff. 'The pro-family movement must speak to the broader concerns of average voters in the areas of taxes, crime, government waste, health-care and financial security.' (Micklewthwait and Woolridge, "The Right Nation," 111.)


 * This only substantiates the desire/intention of one (now former) leader of the CC to widen their agenda. It does not demonstrate that this desire was ever translated into firm policy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional quotation shows how in practice the Christian Coalition brought in other issues to the spectrum: "True to this picture, the coalition's starting point was frequently schools: it convinced not just that their children were attending salons of liberal perversion but also that the Left was lowering academic standards."(Micklewthwait and Woolridge, "The Right Nation," 111.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liskd (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Factors that led to the rise of the Christian Right movement
Under history, how about a subheading for Factors that led to the rise of the Christian Right movement? This would highlight a sociological look at the causes of the movement. Factors can include the grass roots movement (mobilized during and after the Goldwater campaign), media, think tanks, etc. Any suggestions on how to organize this succinctly and effectively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanH3 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party
Quote as per requested: "The Civil Rights Act was a monumental piece of social legislation which made illegal the entire structure of entrenched segregation in the South...In the long term, however, [Barry Goldwater] prepared the ground for the Republican Party's southern strategy...If Goldwater had only brought Southern whites into the Republican coalition, he would not have proved to be a transformative figure. But he also linked conservativism to a very different region--the booming West" (p. 54-57) Micklethwait and Wooldridge. The Right Nation. 2004.

comment added by Mer1221 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Except this quote makes no mention of Brown v. Board of Education, which is what I originally requested a quote over ("the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Barry Goldwater campaign" was a lter interpolation). I will therefore remove references to Brown. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moral Issues and Beliefs
I feel like this section is very confusing and terribly organized. Wouldn't it be better to have the major ideas like Human Life and Separation of Church and State as titles and then underneath them list the sub-titles for better readabiity.

Ex:

Education

 * Prayer in schools

Support for allowing prayer in schools.
 * Homeschooling

Support for homeschooling, and private schooling, generally as an alternative to secular education rather than for Libertarian reasons.In recent years the percentage of children being home schooled has risen from 1.7% of the student population in 1999 to 2.2% in 2003.[25] Much of this increase has been attributed to the desire to incorporate Christian teachings into the curriculum.[26] In 2003 72% of parents who home school their children cited the ability to provide religious or moral instruction as the reason for homeschooling their children.[27]


 * School Vouchers

The Christian Right strongly advocates for a system of educational choice mainly through the support of school vouchers. Vouchers would be government funded and could be redeemed for "a specified maximum sum per child per years if spent on approved educational services". [28] This method would allow parents to determine which school their child attends while relieving the economic burden associated with private schools.
 * Modification of public school curriculum
 * Promotion of the teaching of creationism and intelligent design as opposed to evolution[29][30]
 * On the issue of sexual education in public school's, a spectrum of views exist, from advocating no sex education in public schools to advocating abstinence until marriage, to advocating complete modesty and chastity. The Christian Right has been successful in pushing abstinence only curricula, in fact 30 percent of America's sexual-education programs are abstinence based [31] . These programs promote abstinence until marriage as the only way to prevent against pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the other emotional issues that could arise from sexual activity. Unlike comprehensive sex-education programs, alternatives such as contraception and birth-control are only mentioned, in the context of their failure rates.[32]
 * The Christian Right has made inroads on issues of the public school because many of their followers have been able to influence the curriculum of school districts by running for and winning school board elections. Research suggests that these candidates run to apply their religious or moral beliefs to school policies.[33]Mer1221 (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)mer1221

If we're going to rewrite this section, then I STRONGLY recommend that it is done as prose, not as another embedded list. 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi- to the above comment- I clicked on the entry of embedded lists, and I can see why prose would be preferable in most sections in a wikipedia entry. However, this section is mainly focused on the general beliefs/attitudes/principles that the Christian Right has towards Education. It will be more organized if it is in list form with a brief explanation next to it; a long prose entry is unnecessary where a few sentences would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanH3 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the same thing as prose:

Education
The Christian right supports allowing prayer in schools, homeschooling and school vouchers.

They support homeschooling, and private schooling, generally as an alternative to secular education rather than for Libertarian reasons.In recent years the percentage of children being home schooled has risen from 1.7% of the student population in 1999 to 2.2% in 2003.[25] Much of this increase has been attributed to the desire to incorporate Christian teachings into the curriculum.[26] In 2003 72% of parents who home school their children cited the ability to provide religious or moral instruction as the reason for homeschooling their children.[27]

The Christian Right strongly advocates for a system of educational choice mainly through the support of school vouchers. Vouchers would be government funded and could be redeemed for "a specified maximum sum per child per years if spent on approved educational services". [28] This method would allow parents to determine which school their child attends while relieving the economic burden associated with private schools.

Modification of public school curriculum
The Christian right seek a number of modifcations to public school curricula. They support promotion of the teaching of creationism, including intelligent design, as opposed to evolution which they hold to contradict a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.[29][30]

On the issue of sexual education in public school's, a spectrum of views exist, from advocating no sex education in public schools to advocating abstinence until marriage, to advocating complete modesty and chastity. The Christian Right has been successful in pushing abstinence only curricula, in fact 30 percent of America's sexual-education programs are abstinence based [31]. These programs promote abstinence until marriage as the only way to prevent against pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the other emotional issues that could arise from sexual activity. Unlike comprehensive sex-education programs, alternatives such as contraception and birth-control are only mentioned, in the context of their failure rates.[32]

The Christian Right has made inroads on issues of the public school because many of their followers have been able to influence the curriculum of school districts by running for and winning school board elections. Research suggests that these candidates run to apply their religious or moral beliefs to school policies.[33] [End prose version] I don't see how an embedded list is an improvement over this. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the list much easier to read. Set207 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I find it to be a particularly ugly piece of markup, as well as being against the guidelines contained in WP:EMBED: "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Disenfranchisement of Southern Democrats
"The disenfranchisement of Southern Democrats also contributed to the rise of the Right as a result of the dissolution over race, particularly after desegregation efforts following the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Barry Goldwater campaign attracted members of the Southern elite into the Republican party. The Right also grew as a reaction of the progressive culture of the 1960s and a fear of social disintegration.[8]"

This section is unclear. Is "disenfranchisement" the correct term? Were voting rights infringed? I am assuming the author means the decline of influence of segregationists in the Democratic party. Disfranchisement (or disENfranchisement for those who insist that it is a term) is the loss of the civil right to vote. That did not happen, so this term is an exaggeration that needs to be removed. Any suggestions? M. Rawls, March 25, 2008 ---

Yes, disfranchisement refers to loss of voting rights, but in this context disENfranchisement refers to the loss of a group's public power or collective privilege (literally, the loss of a "franchise.") Disenfranchisement IS a real word commonly used in academia and is not limited to the context of suffrage. However, I agree that it is a good idea to consider other word choices that are more familiar to the lay reader.


 * "Alienation" or similar wouls probably be better in the context. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Demographics of Christian Right
What do people think of adding a "Demographics" section to the Christian Right? It can be a brief section; I think it would be very helpful to understanding the movement in America. Demographics could include percentages of evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and even "non-religious" members who self-identify as the Christian Right, as well as the areas in America and other countries where they are *most concentrated*. The challenge is finding accurate percentages in areas, but a general overview would be extremely helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanH3 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

-

???

I think that would be helpful in explaining the diversity within the group in the United States to quantify the amount of members that are from different denominations. Perhaps also in this section could be percentages of racial groups within the C.R. I'm going to look and try and find other sources as well....--Brg4 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Race & Diversity: Pew Research Center Study
In reading the report from the Pew Research Center (http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/religion-politics-06.pdf) although it does say that 19% of Blacks self-identify with the Religious Right (about double that of whites and the national average) it also says that 14% of Blacks self-identify with the Religious Left (about double that of whites and the national average). So it seems like more Blacks overall self-identify with a political religious group. "Similarly, higher percentages of African Americans than whites say they identify with both the religious right and the religious left" That part of the report was focusing on whether people identified more with the Religious Right or Left and had nothing to do with Black or White.

So, I think the last sentence of the Race & Diversity section either needs to be removed or another sentence about how many Blacks identify with the Religious Left needs to be added. I am leaning towards removing the sentence completely. Jme204 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with its removal. I always felt its relevance to the section, as it is currently worded, was marginal. You can find the rationale for its original inclusion at . <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Photographs
There are no photographs on this page, and that is perplexing. What is even more perplexing is that people are removing an innocuous photo of the Focus on the Family Visitor's Center when 1. They are Christian right; 2. discussion of the movement going out West takes place in the section and FOTF in particular is indicative of that; and 3. Focus on the Family itself is mentioned further down in the section. So, before I open the lack of graphic images to an WP:RFC (most of us on the project agree images improve an article) how, exactly, is this one little photo "irrelevant"? -- David  Shankbone  14:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Except for the fact that, if it weren't for the caption, this could be any building anywhere. The picture thus has ZERO informational value. It is just a picture for the sake of having a picture. Focus on the Family is only very briefly mentioned in passing. You might as well include a picture of a house that Pat Robertson once lived in 20 years ago for all the relevance it would have to an article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not true, and you aren't judging images based upon WP:IMAGES. In the end, it's not *anywhere* it's in Colorado Springs, at a high-profile religious organizations Visitor's Center, and it has their name emblazoned in brass on the wall.  We don't only include images that, should they not have a caption, people could not mistake them for anything else.  How many geological formations would be shunted if *that* were the guidelines?  I've well-explained the relevance.  Is this really worth an RFC for you, because having an article go unillustrated certainly is worth it for me.  If you have better photos, put them up. But the guideline is that images should illustrate the text, and I've already given three reasons why it does so - you are using your own guideline, and a perplexing one at that; I don't think it's a winning argument.  -- David  Shankbone  14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only word that is discernible on the picture is "family", otherwise it is a completely anonymous building (i.e. "any building anywhere"). The picture tells you absolutely nothing about the Christian right, let alone about its history (come to think of it the aforementioned "picture of a house that Pat Robertson once lived in 20 years ago" would actually be more relevant as, unlike this obviously modern building, it would at least be vaguely historical). A group pic of CR leaders from the late 70s would be far more relevant. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, we will open this up to an RFC, then. By the way, adding italics and bolds only makes your arguments seem weak because we are all right here, there is no need to shout or highlight - we can all read just fine.  -- David  Shankbone  15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For a geological formation, the informational value is 'this is what this geological formation we mention in the article looks like'. I don't remember seeing the Welcome Center mentioned anywhere in the article. I have substituted a picture of Jerry Falwell, who (unlike the FotF Welcome Center) actually does play a prominent role in 'the history of the Christian right' (the subject of the section). If we ever decide to include a section on 'Christian right architecture', we'll be sure to consider your photo. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, for geological formations, if they aren't found on the page for, say, Garden of the Gods or Grand Canyon you would not know they are located in those places. Whereas illustrating a headquarters is more than appropriate and often done on many, many articles.  I'm not sure why this bothers you so much.  It's politically neutral, and adds graphic illustration to the page.  Anyway, please stop edit-warring over it and discuss it civilized here.  Thanks.  -- David  Shankbone  16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Illustrating a headquarters" may be appropriate for an organisation, but it is far less relevant for a movement, such as the CR, whose organisations rise, relocate, rename and/or fall with considerable regularity, and seldom outlive their charismatic founders. You may notice that the section you have now shoehorned your pic into mentions Dobson four times, but FotF only once. This is because he is the primary actor, and FotF merely his vehicle (and the Welcome Center merely the 'paintwork' on this vehicle). A movement is about people and ideas, not about buildings. This picture of Dobson:Image:James Dobson 1.jpg would be a better illustration for this section (or if you want variety from leadership portraits, this logo:Image:Focus on the Family logo.png . <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Your first argument I don't find meritorious because this is a Wiki - nothing is enshrined, and if they should relocated from their expansive, four building campus then we can remove the photograph.  Second, you are right--they are about movements, and Focus on the Family is part of that movement.  And since the title of the section is national organizations your own line of reasoning that "'Illustrating a headquarters' may be appropriate for an organisation". Additionally, if the founder and the large organization they founded can't be separated, then the photograph of that organization's most visible building is fine.  Indeed, it is a better illustration because it shows that the fruits of the person's labor is larger than the one person.  Also, please refrain from using phrases like "shoehorn" because it does not assumed good faith. There is absolutely no need for you take on an adversarial role here - we are talking about a photograph of a building, for heaven's sake.  Regardless, populating the article with only photos of prominent people does not serve either the movements they are part of/started, nor the article, justice. -- David  Shankbone  16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Buildings iconically represent stable institutions -- the White House, the Houses of Congress, Westminster, St Peter's Basilica, etc -- the very antithesis of a fluid political movement. I didn't state that "the founder and the large organization they founded can't be separated" -- I stated that the organisation is merely a vehicle for the founder. This means that the organisation can reasonably be represented by the founder, but not vice versa. All that FotF is, is Dobson, but all Dobson is, is not FotF. And you are not illustrating "an organization" but a multitude of organisations, none of whom (including FotF) will be associated in readers' (or even shcolars on the subjects') minds with buildings. As for "shoehorning" -- I would say that the shoe fits. Rather than looking for images to illustrate this article, you appear more interested in finding somewhere in this article to put one of your own images. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't capable of discerning my motives, so please do not or you are in violation of the policy WP:AGF - also known as "comment on the edits, not the editors." Additionally, for you to say FOTF, and its vast, vast international organization that includes publishing (amongst other businesses), will not outlive its founder is your own POV, qualifies as WP:OR and also runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. These aren't arguments, but your personal thoughts and observations, many of which violate core policies.  I'm asking you for a third time, please stop. -- David  Shankbone  17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No WP:CRYSTAL needed -- of the "organisations" (note the plural) that this section is describing (which is what any image is meant to illustrate, not FotF alone), the Moral Majority has already closed shop, and Christian Coalition of America is a mere shadow of its former self. As to the "vast, vast international organization", I'd be skeptical as to how many involve subsidiaries that have achieved any political significance in their host countries (but that is tangential really). I did not say that FotF won't outlive Dobson, merely that our experience with CR organisations generally (which is, rather than FotF specifically, the subject of this section) to date is that generally they don't. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine to say that, but what may apply to one does not necessarily apply to another. And using one--and arguably the largest and most prominent--of the "organizations" is certainly adequate for illustration.  Afterall, you had no problem using Jerry Falwell, when was only one of the movement's leaders.  Your arguments lack consistency, and are more aimed at removal of this particular photo, with little cause. -- David  Shankbone  17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Race and Diversity: Prejudice
One of the articles referenced (Christian Faith and Ethnic Prejudice: A Review and Interpretation of Research) states that "moderateley active church members were found to be prejudiced but highly active church members were as tolerant as nonmembers... It appeared that holding a strong value position which allowed one to stand outside of the value traditions of society at large was crucial in adopting a nonprejudiced position and was typical of both nonreligios and hihgly religious people... No conclusions can be currently drawn about the role of the institutional church in developing or reducing prejudice." This is not mentioned in the Race & Diversity section at all. It does mention that unchurched whites are the least prejudiced which, according to the Christian Faith and Ethnic Prejudice article is not true. Jme204 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If no conclusions can be drawn, then the study should not be included, as it could be misleading. I am hesitant to edit this section, because I know that it has been controversial. I do think the misleading information should be deleted. Furthermore, I have a question about the Thy Kingdom Come quote: why this book? It seems to me that there are many sources of literature on this subject, so why is this book mentioned specifically? I would like to revise this piece so that it is not so much quoting a book, but stating facts, as an encyclopedia article should. But, before I revise this, I wanted to hear thoughts about it. Since this section has been discussed so much, I did not want to proceed without asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldial (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that Bob Jones university waited until 2000 to allow interracial marriage and dating among its members is indication enough of where the Religious Right was on the race issue.
 * The Religious Right is, in a very real sense, the heir to the segregationist movement. Same base (white, rural southern Protestants).  Same people (Jerry Falwell, the patron saint of the fundamentalists, started out life as a white supremacist preacher, while George Wallace, the patron saint of segregationism, was "born again" after leaving politics and found refuge in the Religious Right).  Same rhetoric (God is a capitalist, women belong in the kitchen, anti-government ideology, "values" baloney).  And intrestingly enough, same prejudices.  Against Catholics, immigrants, liberals, homosexuals... and communism, though it has been slowly eased out in favor of Islam as the number one servant of Satan.  The only thing that changed is that they officially dropped racism from their platform (meaning, anti-black and anti-Jewish sentiment).  And even then, racism isn't gone from their ideology so much as buried beneath the surface or repackaged in "respectable" terms.
 * Granted that's not as true anymore. Racism is beginning to fade, even in the Deep South, and so in a sense the fundamentalists' "new" rhetoric is rubbing off on them.  But even then it's the same logic, the same insecure need to feel superior to *someone*.  Since it's become impossible to feel superior for racial reasons, they switched to religious ones, dropping the "W" in "WASP" in favor of the "P".  Ideology is usually just an excuse for behavior, not a reason for it... and as long as someone's stroking the South's massive superiority complex, it doesn't matter if they're doing it through religion or race. 217.52.14.101 (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should edit out the Race and Prejudice part. It has no place in this article on the Christian Right. 69.238.208.134 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is related. I noticed the first line of the section basically states that the more religious (fundamentalist) you are the more prejudiced you are as a group. I followed the reference link and thought that the abstract described the exact opposite effect. As such I think that the quote should be either removed entirely or changed to be more reflective of the source. (61.44.104.66 (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC))


 * The Peek and Brown paper contrasts sexual versus racial prejudice. There is nothing in the abstract that "described the exact opposite effect" to a positive correlation between fundamentalism and racial prejudice. If you believe otherwise, then please quote the exact text that you believe supports your interpretation. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrasting Viewpoints: re-format
I think that the contrasting viewpoints section would be more effective if it were broken up. I think that the first few sentences "The Christian Right is a movement that has been difficult to define due to the heterogeneity of the movement. Although the Right is virtually unanimous on certain issues such as abortion, some contrasting viewpoints can be found among people who identify themselves as members of the Right." could be moved to the top of the Moral Issues and General Beliefs section and act as a sort of disclaimer. Then the following examples could be added to their respective points within this section. This would add more substance to the lists and help keep the issues better organized. We could keep the section and elaborate more on the statement :"A recent study by the Barna Research Group concluded that most Americans under the age of 40 have a negative view of evangelical Christians as a result of the activities of the Christian Right.[58]". or just elimnate the section as a whole. If there are any objections please explain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFTass (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement is sourced and relevant, so should not be removed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is relevant as well. What I was suggesting is that we break up the second paragraph and move each tidbit to their proper place in the previous discussion (see my explanation above). And then we elaborate the first sentence to become the body of that paragraph. The section I believe would then be more relevantly titled: "Opposing Viewpoints" as we will have demonstrated the contrasting viewpoints that are within the movement throughout the article.SFTass (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I received no objections, I went ahead and separated the section. The first part of the section is now covered by the generational issues so I saw no problem removing the section in its entirety. I hope that if anyone has detailed and sourced information about issues within the movement that they will add it to that topic's part within the Moral Issues and General Beliefs section.SFTass (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The disenfranchisement of Southern Democrats and Timeline
What does this have to do with the Christian Right? This has to do with the Southern Democrats joining the Rebublican Party, not the Christian Right. This needs to be changed to show what Southern Democrats joining the Rebublican Party did to help foster the Religeous Right or should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline:

"1948 — Dixiecrat (States' Rights Democratic) Party forms as a short-lived Southern segregationist, populist, socially conservative splinter party of the Democratic Party. A number of prominent members (Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Phil Gramm) later switch parties to the Republican Party. Early 1960s - Barry Goldwater's political campaign draws much attention from conservative leaders July 2, 1964 - The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prompts the defection of many Southern Democrats from the Democratic Party 1972 — The 'Southern strategy' of Richard Nixon's presidential campaign, of exploiting racial anxiety among white voters in the South, eventually leading to a realignment of the South with the Republican Party."

and

1981 - Ronald Reagan becomes president, serving two presidential terms (1981-1989). Republicans capture the Senate for the first time since 1952.

What does this have to do with the religeous right. This is non-Christian Republican party history. Somebody needs to rewrite and source what these events have to do with the formation of the Christian Right or be removed. J. D. Hunt (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The rise of the Christian right can, to a considerable extent, be traced to a conservative reaction to their failure to stem the civil rights movement (and similar liberal agendas), which failure had its roots in the Democratic party moving from being segregationalist to pro-civil rights. The 1948 defection is major landmark in this realignment. It is not about the CR itself, but it is about the underlying circumstances that led to the CR becoming a politically prominent movement. I'm not sure why Reagan is in there. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplistic at best——that the "Christian Right" began with the Democratic Party in 1948. Apparently the South HAS risen again. If you're going to take the "Christian Right" ascendancy back to 1948, then why not back to the finesse of ("so help us God") FDR in keeping southern sheriffs on his side, to the southern Democrats' rebellion against Al Smith in 1928, to Woodrow Wilson in 1912? After all, Wilson was Jesus Christ, as was famously attested by British Prime Minister David Lloyd George. Richard David Ramsey 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard David Ramsey (talk • contribs)

Ronald Regan was in fact a church attending Christian as a youth, so his election could perhaps be claimed to be included, but I ask anyone to make a reasonable claim to the religious right being connected to the southern democrats leaving the party. This needs to be addressed within the next month, (by Oct 21, 2008) or be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkid124 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out above, perhaps it's the fact that the voters who supported the Southern Democrats and the voters who supported the Religious Right were exactly the same people.
 * Perhaps it's the fact that the latter movement is a seamless continuation of the former; Jerry Falwell beginning life as a white supremacist preacher and George Wallace finding refuge in the religious right after leaving politics; every conservative evangelist pre-1970s supporting segregation (Gerald L. K. Smith, Billy James Hargis); racial segregation continuing at Bob Jones University until the year 2000; the prejudices against Catholics, against homosexuals, against immigrants, and against women in anything but a subservient position happening to be exactly the same in the old Southern Democrat and the present Religious Right constitutencies...
 * Nope, I'm sure there's no link at all between white supremacism and Christian fundamentalism. 147.9.233.254 (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiccan and Neo-Pagan discrimination by the Christian Right
There is nothing in the Article "Religious discrimination against Neopagans" that sources that the Christian Right Movement wants discrimination against Wiccans and Neo-Pagans. If anything groups like the ACLJ have one cases that while defending Christianity against government encroachements, has in effect helped Wiccan, Neo-Pagan, Diests, Unitarians, Satanists, Islamists, Jews, Polytheists, est. Unless sources are added that point to names or organizations, then it should be removed.J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find that highly unlikely (and like everything else you have written completely unsubstantiated). Can you present any evidence to back this claim? My experience has been that the Christian right has no interest in "religious freedom" beyond their 'freedom' to impose their own religion on others. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert without discussion
I was rewritting the section like the plate said needed. If you disagreed with the revision you should tell me which parts and why, and not erase the whole thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it was wholly unsourced and most probably WP:OR. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't catch the no source note in your change when I asked the question. I thought it might just be someone gaurding their pov baby. It is not original research. I lost my source pages when my browser crashed. But, I decide to add the content I had, then come back and add them, but you reverted my edits and kept reverting (violating the three-revert rule) my work before I got to add them.


 * I will not violate the three-revert rule, so I will come back and add it all when I have the edit and all the sources another day. I study religion and it is fairly common knowledge that the religeous right hold these views. You can find many of the religeous rights views via the organizations and the people, like Tim Lahay, on their websites, as well as, on many wikipedia articles covering the organizations and people in the movement. J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Middle-eastern foreign policy positions
This section comes entirely from one source and seems rather biased. The opinions portrayed in the source are not representative of the entire "Christian Right", and are instead about a group called "Christian Zionists" in the article. I made a couple changed, but this really needs to be cleaned up. There's probably more information available about this subject somewhere which are more generally held/credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramorum (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - any suggestions as to how this section can be cleaned up even further? Set207 (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:DUE, opinions should be given weight according to their prominence. According to the article on Christian Zionism, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, and Pat Robertson are proponents (as are Tom DeLay and Alan Keyes). This would make it a prominent viewpoint among the CR. Can you suggest any competing viewpoints with prominent proponents? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I may stand corrected - a 2003 study by The PEW Research Center (national survey, n = 2,002, 95% confidence level) found that about 70% of evangelical Christians believe that Israel was given to the Jews by God, and that over 60% believe that Israel is a fulfillment of Second Coming prophecy. They define "evangelical" Christians as those who self-identify as evangelical or born again. Are we willing to accept that definition as representative of the Christian Right? Personally, I feel that these data are more convincing than the potentially inflammatory quotes of a few well known figures. If there are no objections, I will replace the quotes with these statistics and a link to the study. Set207 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC) http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=725

Government Section: Church and State
To fix the Church and State section would it be beneficial to separate the points into “Support For” and “Opposed To” sections? I agree it is a little wordy and confusing. I am having trouble coming up with ways to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldial (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Christian Right believes that separation of church and state is not explicit in the US Constitution, but is a creation of activist judges in the judicial system." I don't mean to focus on whether the judges are "activist" but on the phrase "separation of church and state" and the words "believes" and "explicit." Well, the phrase simply does not, in fact, appear explicitly in the Constitution. Thus is the verb "believes" really a fitting discriminator? Are there sane people who "believe" that the phrase "separation of church and state" does, in the US Constitution, appear "explicitly"? Richard David Ramsey 03:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard David Ramsey (talk • contribs)

Is the "generational issues" section necessary?
I find this section to be out of place and unnecessary. I wanted to know the reasons why it ought to be included, and if any one else thinks it should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldial (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it is ironic that you misplace this complaint at the top of the talkpage. I would think that its increasing generational disconnect with younger generations would be a fairly important issue confronting the CR. It is well-sourced. So I don't see what the problem is -- and will therefore object strenuously to any attempt to remove it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please don't bite. --Gimme danger (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The way this section was created it was neither (1) where it would be expected to be (the bottom of the page) nor did it have an auto-edit-summary indicating its section-title -- thus the only way to find it, was to look at the page's history. This tends to make people irritable and 'snappy'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ReplyIt is oddly placed. The material should probably go into the history section. Otherwise it's just a dangling section that looks like an afterthought. Like Hrafn, I think that current conflicts within the CR and relations with the world at large are necessary for complete coverage. If anything, the section ought to be expanded or balanced. I don't see the purpose of one big blockquote.--Gimme danger (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's not part of the movement's "history" -- it is an issue connected with its present & future. It's current placement, at the very end of the article, is thus probably the best place for it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response I think that what Ldial may be implying, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, is that, since the rest of the article is divided into very broad sections with more specific subsections, that it throws the article off balance to have a very short and specific section appended to the end. As it is now, the History section is somewhat anemic, but with more content, I think that this data will fit in well with some sort of "Recent Events" subsection.
 * I could also see expanding the "Current Trends" section to balance the article, but I don't know what else you could put in there. Perhaps the trend toward more explicitly humanitarian issues, a la Rick Warren, could be part of that, but I don't know if that movement is within the purview of the Christian Right as a proper noun. --Gimme danger (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The section originated in an orphan paragraph in another section that I recently found a buttressing reference for. The CR is going through a period of transition. Its current demographic is aging and thus shrinking, and it is facing stiff competition from the likes of the Emerging church movement for younger generations. Whether, and how, it maintains its relevance to the next generation is a critical issue for the movement -- and an issue that has been facing all Christian denominations (and many individual churches) in the recent past. For this reason I do not think it is appropriate to have it in the 'History' section (even as a 'recent trends' subsection). I agree however that it needs to be expanded to encompass the CR's response to these demographic realities.
 * Alright, that sounds reasonable to me. I know that a lot has been written recently about the changes in the CR, so the references should be relatively easy to find. I'm bogged down in Tibet and related articles, but once that settles down (never?) I can put some more energy into this article. Gimme danger (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"The teens of the 2000s however have shown growing support for the Chrisian Right..."
The various versions of this passage have had two problems: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) They have repeatedly overstated what the teens in question were agreeing to.
 * 2) Adducing general "support" from very narrow and equivocal agreement on a single issue, is such outrageous WP:SYNTH that it borders on outright fabrication. Setting the bar this low, you could find evidence that just about anybody supported the CR.

As for addressing a "single" issue, it was a 'for example' and was prefaced as so. I believe the above quote does the same when describing the divergent attitudes of 20-somethings. Also even though the statistic says that the prayer would be non-specific, that is what many on the CR are advocating for anyways, so it shows that their alignment. However if you are still unhappy with its quality, the section still needs something to show that the youth are involved in this movement as the above two statements are extremely onesided. I suggest that you find a statistic that you like and get it up there fast so that people are not misguided in thinking that the CR is a movement of old people and that all young people disagree. The heading "Generational Issues" is very misleading with only information about how young people oppose the CR.SFTass (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What you need is decade-on-decade statistics of age-groups' participation in conservative Christianity -- particularly after they leave home, so that their participation measures their own preferences, not their parents'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This single and very narrow "example", is grossly insufficient to substantiate the sweeping generalisation of "growing support for the Chrisian Right"
 * 2) The teen survey is subtitled: "Least likely to support spoken prayer that mentions Jesus Christ" Are you really claiming that the CR favours prayers that "does not mention any specific religion" over ones that "mentions Jesus Christ"? That doesn't match what I've seen of the CR.

"Generational Issues" needs work
I apologize for deleting this section without giving a reason. The relevance or profundity of the quote from USAToday is questionable (I actually don't view USAToday as a legitimate news source, but oh well). Every generation has complained about the younger generation's ethics and morals. For example, think about the "social disintegration" that outraged evangelicals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s. The quote by the neoconservative is not anything new, insightful, or unique to the Christian Right.

Also, the information under Generational Issues is insufficient. It is an interesting topic; however it needs to be elaborated on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanH3 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well "I actually don't view" your opinion of USAToday's value as a legitimate news source to be in any way substantiated. If you want to argue the point then take it to WP:RS/N. If you don't, then why bring it up? You likewise provide no substantiation for your assertion that "the relevance or profundity of the quote from USAToday is questionable". The article is not a complaint "about the younger generation's ethics and morals" -- it is about the current CR leadership's inability to connect with the values and aspirations of the next generation. It provides a possible explanation for the phenomenon reported by Kinnaman directly above it. I am restoring the quote. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

- Hrafn, why so defensive? I detect a sarcastic tone. It's ok to disagree and I appreciate your feedback; you don't have to be so defensive. Anyways, I agree that it is relevant to note the "current CR leadership's inability to connect with the values and aspirations of the next generation." But I did not get that message from the quote. If you want to keep the quote there, why don't you add a line to elaborate and make that point clearer? In fact, I'll copy and paste what you just said into that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.180.149 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (SusanH3)


 * I was not being "defensive", merely responding to your adversarial (and more than a little inflammatory) tone on the subject of USAToday. The point is that the new generation values tolerance more than conformity. What the CR might see as 'taking a moral stand', they are likely to interpret as 'bigotry'. They are more likely to know people that are openly gay, have unmarried parents (and given divorce rates, the line between married and unmarried is increasingly blurring), or are agnostic or atheist, so are less likely to view these as something scary or worthy of condemnation. Rhetoric that might whip up previous generations into a 'moral panic' will not work on them -- because the gays/unmarried parents/atheists are not some frightening unknown, but their best friend's brother, etc. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice explanation. If you can add those lines to that section (or something akin to that), it would make it much stronger and richer. As far as the USAToday comment, I take that back. For some reason I thought Wikipedia had the more stringent criteria of academia, where sources like USAToday would never be deemed as credible. My mistake. Collaborators, not foes, ok? I have read your posts on this Talk page. You have substantive reasoning for your arguments which can be conveyed without involving irritability/sarcasm or patronizing tones. Let your rhetoric stand for itself instead of taking things too personally. Granted, there are some emotionally charged issues, but I hope that there can be civilized discourse on this site.

As for the topic "Current trends," (right above subtopic "Generational Issues,") are there other subtopics that will go underneath that section, or should the two titles be combined into one? SusanH3 (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)SusanH3

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While it is permissible to use our own judgement (and thus original research) in assessing what is relevant for an article, it is not permissible (per WP:OR) to include these assessments themselves in the article -- we have to source such opinions to a WP:RS. There may well be sources out there making this point, but I haven't come across them since starting work on this section. If I come across one, I'll add it.
 * WP:RS states: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press."
 * There almost certainly will be other 'current trends', I just can't think of them immediately -- part of the reason for the section title was to encourage other editors to think up with them (the other reason being to attempt to give some context to the topic of 'generational issues').

Movements outside the United States
i do not think this heading covers the contents, which are solely oriented on the movements of the Christian Right in the english speaking world and even then limited to Australia, Canada and the UK at that... the Christian Right movement has a much broader distribution than that and historically been highly influential, less so at present, in in particular North-West Europe, i.e. Scandinavia, Germany and the Netherlands from a protestant perspective and the West Mediterranean Countries (+ France and Belgium maybe)from a Catholic perspective. The article entirely ignores also particular organisations such as Opus Dei which should perhaps be included OR their exclusion from this section be justified

24.207.127.172 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that English-speaking countries: If you want to add (reliably sourced, etc) content on the Christian Right in non-English-speaking countries, then you are welcome to do so (please take note of WP:V in the process however). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) are more permeable to US Chrstian Right influences, so the relationship of their movements to the US's are more readily apparent; and
 * 2) have information on them that is more readily accessible to English-speaking editors.


 * The article is US centric to the extreme and needs to be all brought together into a more global view. Christian Conservatives exist all over the world as 24.207.127.172 pointed out. Hrafn, I'm not sure what you mean by "US Christian Right influence" on other English speaking nations, the two things exist entirely independently of each other. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because "Christian Right" refers above all to a fundamentalist movement found in the United States. Conservative Christians exist all over the world, but most of them do not agree with many of the tenets of the movement we are now discussing.  Either the conservative-Protestant exclusivism of the movement, or its intertwinement with American exceptionalism and nationalism, or its wedding to capitalism and Prosperity Theology, make it very unattractive to most foreigners whether they're Christian or not, conservative or not.
 * There are conservative Christians in the Philippines (quite a lot, in fact), but the fact that they're Catholic makes them radically different from the fundamentalists in the U.S. (tolerance of other religions and willingness to take the Bible as an allegory are two things that are antithetical to the fundies). There are conservative Christians in Latin America, but since abortion and gay marriage are still largely illegal down there, social justice is instead the main focus of their politics; this has often led them to support social democratic reforms that the fundies also abhor.  There are conservative Christians in the Middle-East, but the fundies' support for an Israeli policy that murders them by the truckload again is an irreconciliable gulf between them and the group we're calling "Christian Right".
 * "the Christian Right movement has a much broader distribution than that"
 * True. When we're calling something the "Christian Right", we usually refer to a movement that is very specific to conservatism, Protestantism and America.  I'd support changing this to "Christian Right in America", but even that wouldn't be satisfactory since what we call the "Christian Right" is more restrictive than even that, usually excluding Catholics, Jews, Mormons and others even as they take their support on the hot button issues of abortion and gay marriage.  "Fundamentalism" is as close as I can get for definitions... if you find something better, let me know. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State Section -- Needs to be Re-Done
The section on "Separation of Church and State" should be re-done. First, the Section is not (fully) written from a neutral standpoint. The Article section says at one point: "Christian Right believes in X, even though writings suggest not X." Writings suggest? Who says they suggest this? The writings could be open to multiple interpretations. The point should be re-phrased so that it is given from a more neutral standpoint. It should instead say that, scholar X or scholar Y, or that some people, believe the writings suggest otherwise. Second, the section says, "Because the Christian right does not believe in separation of Church and State..." This is ambiguous and, I fear, is also quite wrong. It is ambiguous because it fails to address that there are two things going on: Separation of Church and State as a matter of Constitutional Interpretation, and Separation of Church and State as a political belief. And if the claim is the Christian Right doesn't believe in it as a Constitutional Interpretation, that's a huge overstatement to make. The Christian Right is not suggesting it doesn't exist; it merely suggests that its scope is more limited than others believe. The Christian Right is not suggesting the Constitution would allow for the government to be run by Mullahs or Priests. And if the claim is about the Christian Right's political belief of not believing in separation of Church and State.. well, Really? So the Christian right wants to have a theocracy like you seen in Iran? A few extremists might hold this view, but it is not held by the Christian Right generally. The Christian Right believes the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in Courts and that prayer time should be allowed in public schools. To equate this with not believing in Separation of Church and State is making way too big of a leap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.165.9 (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That all this is your opinion just. Its not any less or more valid than anybody else's as you have absolutely no citations to back up any of your things. There have been various statements made that CaS separation is a myth by Christ right figures. You can't either deny that, do you?!? You mainly only seek to define what such disbelief means. You make delineations between different types of CaS separation disbelief out of thin-air. And you do this without any sources. Instead of such, you employ what they call I believe "non-sequitors". No one has here has made edits supporting a clear comparison of the Christ right with Muslim figures in the Mid-East to be exact. But just because they are not that, doesn't change their disbelief in the CaS separation.


 * Both of you faggots should can it. Really articles like this should probably be trashed mostly because it describes a fully abstract idea that is not founded well in any true scholerly research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.137.190.52 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a third party to the discussion but let me say this. In all candor, you "Anon" are a very rude person. You have no business telling anyone to do anything. No one solicited your opinion in the first place. And your use of slurs only further illustrates your lack of class. It shows a lack of courage to speak in such a way with an anonymous address. And invoking such intellectual terms as "scholarly research" are absolutely hilarious when one researches your own history and finds your anonymous address has made only one edit, this one above. Thus you lack any evidence to show that you have any understand of the words you type. You just are very fortunate that you weren't talking to me in the first place!4.252.212.184 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)