Talk:Christian right/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Christian Right or Religious Right?

I typed in Religious Right into Wiki and Christian Right came up instead, surely this isn't a Neutral Point of View? What about Orthadox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims?

And that brings me to another point, one that is perhaps very contraversial: Is Osama bin Laden a member (albeit a very extreme one) of the Religious Right?

Arab Terrorists seem to believe that the ends justifies the means, but so do many Israeli Ultra-Zionist Jews and American Neo-Con Christians.

I'm not saying Ann Coulter is as bad as Bin Laden, I just feel that people like her are closer to his beliefs than more liberal minded people.


Haven Adair 21:45 2005-01-04 GMT

"Religious Right" refers to a certain faction of the Republican Party, which is almost exclusively Christian. (And largely antidisestablishmentarist - which, by nature and logic, is antithetical to religious diversity.) Kevin Baastalk: new 16:13, 2005 May 7 (UTC)



In regard to the sentence: ...opposition to the practice of gay or straight "sodomy" (usually meaning anal sex or oral sex) I do not believe this sentence to be true. I am myself a Christian, and therefore I know lots of Christians, and I have never heard this definition of sodomy. Usually, sodomy is defined as homosexual sexual relations, usually between two men, and usually anal sex. I don't want to start a fight, which is why I have not yet changed it. Personally, I believe the statement in the article is biased, and based on a lack of familiarity with Christianinty and Christian beliefs. Starbane 04:00, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moved the following out of the article and into Talk: The Christian right is a right-wing American political movement consisting of Christians, many of them Fundamentalists, who claim that their political positions are the views of all Christians. (And, of course, you can document that every member of this movement makes this claim ... no?)

In reality, American Christians hold a wide variety of political views. The Christian right is allied with the United States Republican Party. (Could you include a copy of the treaty of alliance that they signed?)

Zoe

I would reverse the sentence
Many elements of the Christian right sympathize with, support, and sometimes influence the United States Republican Party.
to read
The Republican Party has actively sought the support of the Christian right.
Ortolan88


Nice work with NPOVing, April! -- Zoe

From M-W: irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

It is a word, but its usage is nonstandard and stems from (I believe) a blend of "irrespective" and "regardless". The word "irregardless" does not belong in an encyclopedias. Note the combination of the negative prefix ir- and the negative suffix -less. -- ヤギ
Agree. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, says that irregardless is incorrect in formal style. I use it myself in speech, though. Perhaps someone should write an article at wiktionary:irregardless? Martin
Hey, I didn't try to put it back into the article, I just pointed out that is *is* a word.


Fundamentalists only make up a small portion of the religious right. See my remarks under Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity Pollinator 05:11, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

... some going so far as to advocate the "transfer" of the Palestinian population from the West Bank...

Exactly to where are some members of the "Christian right" supposedly advocating transferring this population? Maybe it's just the current spate of World War II specials I've been watching, but when I read this, I immediately thought of Hitler's "final solution" for the "Jewish problem", which started with relocating Jews into concentration camps. This vague and possibly unintentional implication seems very non-NPOV. Could someone elaborate on what this is supposed to mean? Are their specific ideas, plans, and/or statements that can be attributed to people who consider themselves among the "Christian right"? -- Jeff Q 23:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jordan and/or other Arab countries also giving citizenship to the populations in Lebanon etc..
There are/were several websites and fundraisers since 1999 to promote these ideas. Do a google search.
The whole article is a little vague but I do not see it as intentional just it is new. Colin Carr 21:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

References to War on Terrorism

Although some may call the term "War on Terrorism" propagandistic, and may dispute whether the battles for Iraq or Afghanistan are part of this war, altering conventional terminology to express this opinion introduces POV. We may dispute whether the United States is really united, but to call it the Divided States defies NPOV, so we are stuck with calling it the United States. Although the allegory is admittedly imperfect, World War II was fought in many different countries, even though at the time some were insisting they were separate wars that just happen to have been fought at the same time. Similarly, operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are organized as separate fronts under one millitary action (with differing coalition composition, as in WWII) that has been consistently called "The War on Terrorism" since 14 Sep 2001, see Tenth Crusade. For journalistic reporting, "War in Iraq" and "War in Afghanistan" are NPOV as shorter forms of "the battle for Iraq" or "battle for Afghanistan" of the "War on Terrorism," but the problem with the former terms is that they will be dated as soon as the current wars end and the next wars begin, so the latter terms are probably preferable. History is likely to change this term, as changing "The World War" or "The Great War" to "World War I", etc. But for now, let's try to find NPOV by using the generic wording, and if it is necessary to the content of the article to explain other POVs arising from opposition to the generic terms, then we should address that as a separate issue. For the Tenth Crusade article, they agreed to just link to the War on Terrorism article and let that article explain any relevant issues surrounding objections to related terminology.

The Christian Right and Civil Rights

"In the past, they supported issues such as ..., prohibition, and civil rights. This probably doesn't belong in the article. While some of the members of the Christian Right certainly did support civil rights ardently, others emphatically did not and in fact some of them were also ardent supporters of segregation and white supremacy. This is not something that the Christian Right was uniform on and probably is inaccurate. It would be similar to saying that "Republicans favor balancing the budget, even if to do so would require minor tax increases." Some do, but others, probably most, do not.

You voice a very common misperception usually growing out of politically biased interpretations of religious movements, as well as the tendency of journalists and historians to ignore reporting on church activities. Read articles on abolitionism, prohibition and the Second Great Awakening. By and large, the Christian Right as an American political movement was born in that era. The vast majority of their successors continued to ardently support the civil rights movement, but did not attempt to take leadership of the movement away from more vocal advocates. As a result, journalists and historians usually fail to properly document the important support role provided by the Christian Right, and its long history supporting Civil Rights spanning more than a century.
For more evidence, consider that the various Civil Rights Acts from 1866 through 1968 were consistently pushed by the Christian Right. Also, a larger proportion of Republicans than Democrats voted to pass the 1960s acts, in response to well-documented letter-writing campaigns by conservative churches. A thorough study of conservative sermons and religious writings on the topic of civil rights in the 20th century will reveal an overwhelming support within the Christian Right for improving treatment of the historically disadvantaged. There were certainly a few very vocal white supremacists among the fringes of the Christian Right, but to associate the entire Christian Right movement with the bigotry of a few would be as inaccurate and unfair as asserting that all American Democrats are communist totalitarians just because Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed a bill to socialize medicine. Historical truth does not always align with predominant political viewpoints.
Recently, it is true that many in the Christian Right have begun to resist certain kinds of Affirmative Action they deem no longer necessary, but also notice that the Christian Right is largely in favor of "no child left behind" and school vouchers that, in their estimation, would allow socioeconomically disadvantaged children enrolled in bad schools to move to better schools, for the same reasons the Christian Right originally supported civil rights.
Democratic partisans, for purely political reasons, often resist publication of the Christian Right's long history supporting civil rights, but just because a movement's political opponents don't want certain aspects of that movement to get too much publicity is hardly a good enough reason to be complicit in revising history for partisan reasons by failing to acknowledge facts that might damage the movement's political opponents.
Currently, the article only gives two words referencing the Christian Right's relationship with civil rights, because linked articles tend to expound at greater length on the important role of Christian churches in these political movements. If this is insufficiently clear, we could also add extra paragraphs detailing how the Christian Right participated in each of the various American political movements over time. However, to remove the reference to civil rights in this article would be to omit what was the predominant political agenda of the Christian Right for more than a century, which would result in unfair POV by omission, and would probably also warrant a stub notice for being excessively incomplete. :-)

Nice response [wish that you'd signed it ;) ]. I grew up in a movement that would for the most part be considered part of the modern Christian Right (I will admit having never heard of the term prior to the "Reagan Revolution", but my ignorance of it is certainly no proof that it didn't exist.) I'll stand by what I said, based on my own experience; if you can bring things to the table that will trump that, I am very capable of being convinced and don't want to close my eyes to the facts. I would say that the very ecumentical spirit of Abolitionism was a) somewhat different than the more Fundamentalist tendencies of today's Christian Right and b) not ever particularly popular in the South (to understate the truth), and the U.S. South, while not the only home of the Christian Right, is a huge focus of it. I don't buy at all that today's Christian Right is a direct outgrowth of political activism that grew out of Abolitionism. I will also add (again from first-hand knowledge) that many Southern Fundamentalist churches and religious activists until quite recently (a few still hold to this view) disclaimed any form of political activism, some down to even voting, as being an unnecessary entanglement on the part of a Christian in the affairs of this world. It was necessary to overcome this worldview, which was ingrained in many, to start the modern Christian Right, especially in the South, and as best I can tell, to an extent elsewhere as well. I would say that the modern Christian Left has some of its antecedents in Abolition activism (but more in the Cahtolic Worker movement, which desparately needs an Wikipedia article that I'm not knowledgable enough to write). We will agree at least that the Christian Right was not the guiding or driving force in the Civil Rights era, and that many individual members of the Christian Right supported it on moral grounds. I believe both of these statements to be correct, but I still think that the article should be slightly changed in this area. I will not do so at this time, and would appreciate futher input from you, the unknown (till now, at least) poster, or others who are equally knowledgable.

I cited several related articles. Your personal experience is a good springboard for research, but it is by definition your POV. To characterize a worldwide or nationwide movement by local or regional phenomena is also POV resulting from overgeneralization. To reach NPOV, we have to rely on sources more solid than our own POVs. If you can cite references to respected journal articles (preferably by URL) or other such sources to back up your POV, you will be building a case that we might be able to describe in NPOV terms. The articles I cited connect the dots from the Second Great Awakening through Abolitionism, Prohibitionism, the US Civil Rights movement and the Christian Right. Granted, they are just wikipedia articles, so I'll have to work harder to find better support if you one-up me with good evidence other than your own POV to show this lineage is not valid. I look forward to reading the references you cite. :-)

Details, Details

Dominionism is a religious philosophy, while Dominion Theology is -- a theology. It's a fine point, but its there.

What credible source has suggested Christian Identity is part of the Christian Right? Cite it and we can talk some more. Zapped for now.--Cberlet 23:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nazi's and people who claim that they are the "true aryan Jews", Odin worshippers and whatnot cannot rightly be called "christian right". They having nothing to do with the christian coalition, or anthing like that, the Christian right obviously doesn't accept them. While their clearly on the fringes, I think their one of many groups which display the errors of the left-right dichotomy. Good edit mr. Berlet Example (talk · contribs) 14:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"according to Diamond"?

Who is Diamond? Why cite him here? He seems rather a partisan. I happen to agree that the christian right has supported govt. military intervention since the 50's, but that phrasing sounds derogatory to me. Example (talk · contribs) 14:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because the previous edit had facutally false text about 9/11 being the turnaround from isolationism, which really happened in the 1950s and the Cold War. Diamond was listed in the references at the bottom of the page.--Cberlet 22:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Some corrections and NPOV

Christian Right groups consist primarily of Protestant Christians, many of them fundamentalists.

-Obviously written by someone on the left who would not know a fundamentalist if one bit him. Fundamentalists see things in black and white; if you are wrong about one thing, you are wrong in all things, and their concern for doctrinal purity tends to lead them to withdraw from other Christians, from politics, and even from each other. For this reason fundamentalists are not usually coalition builders, and since they are a minority in the US, they could not have much political power. The Christian Right probably has more members in the mainline churches than in any other group. While the denominational spokespeople who are sought out by the media tend to be on the left, the laity of several mainline denominations is solidly conservative. Roman Catholics likewise voted to the right, against a Catholic candidate who favored abortion rights (John Kerry)Pollinator 15:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Statistical research of most scholars argues otherwise. See, for example:

  • Green, John C. (1993). Religion, Social Issues, and the Christian Right. Paper, presented at "The Religious New Right and the 1992 Campaign: An Assessment," Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC, December 9–10.
  • Green, John C. (1996). “A Look at the ´Invisible Army´: Pat Robertson’s 1988 Activist Corps.” In John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Lyman A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front (pp. 44–61). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Green, John C. (1996). Understanding the Christian Right. Booklet. New York: The American Jewish Committee.

Green, John C., James L. Guth, and Kevin Hill. (1993). "Faith and Election: The *Christian Right in Congressional Campaigns 1978–1988." The Journal of Politics, vol. 55, no. 1, February, pp. 80–91.

  • Green, John C., James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Lyman A. Kellstedt. (1996). Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Green, John C., Corwin E. Smidt, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and James L. Guth. (1997). "Bringing in the Sheaves: The Christian Right and White Protestants, 1976–1996." In Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning (Eds.), Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective: Religious Forces in the Modern Political World (pp. 75–91). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.

When I find the page cites, I will put some statistics on the page showing that the Christian Right is primarily Protestant evangelicals (not mainline church members) with individual fundamentalists along for the ride, and a small number of Catholics. Having attended two national Road to Vistory meetings of the Christian Coalition and interviewed many attendees, my own anecdotal observations agree with this view as well.--Cberlet 22:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but don't ignore the many in the mainline churches who may not go to rallies or join organizations, but will regularly vote with the Christian right. Also I wrote this rather quickly and failed to note Pentecostal/Charismatics as a significant component, as I had intended. Pollinator 22:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Good point about the Pentecostal/Charismatic component, especially since that is Pat Robertson's tradition despite his Southern Baptist roots. But is it fair to argue that voting for conservatives makes you part of the Christian Right? Not all Christian conservative voters claim they are part of the Christian Right in exit polls, and even fewer are actually members of Christian right parachurch organizations like CC or Bev's CWA. --Cberlet 23:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, voting is where "the rubber hits the road." Don't you think the reluctance to identify might be affected by the frequent use of the term "Christian right" in a disparaging way? Pollinator 23:50, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
If you can find a serious researcher who makes these arguments, by all means post a reference. It's possible. I remain skeptical absent more evidence. No sociologist I have read considers the Christian Right to be composed of all politically-conservative Christian voters. There are complex demographics, which I have written about as a critic of the Christian Right, but also as someone who tries to resist demonization and weak evidence.--Cberlet 03:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some claim that their political positions are, or ought to be, the views of all Christians. American Christians, including conservative Christians, hold a wide variety of political views.

Besides being a not-so-subtle attack against "fundamentalists," this is just plain silly. Everyone thinks their view should be universally held. Pollinator 15:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Actually not true. There are many people who are more pluralistic. But it was awkward writing and somewhat redundant to the claims about Donimionism.--Cberlet 22:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Un huh..."many people" think the pluralistic viewpoint should be everyone's. Pollinator 22:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I certainly do...  :-) --Cberlet 23:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section seems to be getting a lot of flack. However, I think a section labeled 'Criticism' is fairly announcing that it is showing the point of view of an opposition group, and is a fair addition to the article. Accusation of POVing on it should be constrained to insinuating that the opposition is correct in their accusations, in a way that cannot be proven imperically. However, I do think the criticizing group or individuals should be mentioned and labeled appropriatey, so to avoid the contributors themselves simply voicing their opinion.

As for Silverback's questions about 'obscure' point of view on Dominionism, the two major anti-Christian Right lobbies in Washington actively push this message, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate others on the full spectrum of a topic.

Unsigned one, can you provide a citation for this? Do the groups that make this accusation accuse the whole amorphous "Christian right" of this intent or just certain named leaders? What do they cite as evidence, are the members of the "Christian right" that self identify as dominionists, or is this the conclusion of the groups you mention? I think the section should be removed until supporting evidence is provided.--Silverback 10:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey Silverback. The cite to two of the groups that make the claim is in the text: "Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United For Separation of Church and State." I can add two more, Theocracy Watch and Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. I don't agree with their use of the term Dominionism, but they clearly make the criticism mentioned in the text here.--Cberlet 16:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If they make the criticim, why isn't there a citation, hopefully on the web.--Silverback 10:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, I think your attempts to whitewash anything remotely negative in this article rather silly. Stop making this a sounding board for your movement, and lets get back to the objective universe, and stop this the editing war. Or else we might just start a profoundly unnecessary reference list of those who disagree with the Christian Right, and line out every specific accusation (and a couple of convictions at that).
Unsigned one, it is not my "movement". This is a place for substantive criticisms, not unfounded bashing and overgeneralizations.--Silverback 10:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Challenge officially accepted. Prepare. --User:Primalchaos 2:27 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet, American Civil Liberties Union Archive, from January 16, 1996: “Reconstructionism is a theology that argues that only Christian men should rule civil society. It has a softer related theology called dominionism. ... ‘Dominionism’ in general threatens the Church/State separation so vital to our democracy as a pluralist society. Groups such as the Christian Coalition really have adopted many of the tenets of Dominionism, and some key Christian right leaders are close to Reconstructionism, which thinks that the U.S. Constitution is a sub-document overruled by Old Testament Biblical Laws.”

you have substantiated the name calling, but not what this person is actually saying, does he elaborate. Which tenets of dominionism, that "Christ is risen", or something more ominous, the devil is in the details. Many Christians of both the left and right, hold the testaments to be higher in authority than the Constitution, but that occurs often without the seeking of secular power. Quakers were leaders in the underground that illegally assisted the escapes of slaves and worked for jury nullification in runaway slave cases. Certain religious sects refuse to swear oaths or say the pledge of allegience and have refused to serve in the military despite the supreme court's ruling that conscription is constitutional. So far what you have established is that "Chip Berlet of the ACLU accuses some unamed persons he claims are Christian right leaders of being close to Reconstructionism". As someone who witnessed the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention (as an outside observer of those on the front lines of the battle and eventual split), I know there are some fundamentalists who will plot and intrigue to take over institutions of power and impose creeds in violation of the baptist principle of "priesthood of the believer", but even within the Southern Baptist Convention their power was due to mere persistance, activism and organization, not because they were anywhere near a majority. To characterize a significant minority voting block of the US population as holding dominionist, reconstructionist or millenialist theologies when their behavior is easily explanable by faith and the belief that the sanctity of the life of the fetus is important enough to protect with their vote, is to accuse them of a theological sophistication that is not widespread, and of having ulterior motives rather than the concern they plainly express. If left wing concern about dominionism is as advanced as your list of writings seem to indicate (and has a rational basis), then I assume someone, somewhere has actually documented that some leaders who are prominently identified with the Christian right have openly avowed dominionism or the most pertinent principles thereof. If there haven't been open avowals, then they would have to do more work, of course, documenting facts and arguing for the inferences that can be drawn from those facts.--Silverback 03:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Barron, Bruce. 1992. Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.

Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press.

Clarkson, Frederick. 1997. Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage.

[1] - PublicEye.org, a liberal watchdog group, directly links the Republican religious vote with Dominionism

[2] - identifies Dominionist style policies in current legislation

[3] - Religioustolerance.org lists several known Christian Right speakers as Dominionists

[4] - - Religious Tolerance Coalition identifies Jerry Faldwell and Pat Robertson as members of Dominionism

[5] - identifies Dominionist style policies in current legislation

[6] - Directly identifies Christian International, a member of the religious right, as a Dominionist organization.

[7] - Center for Media and Democracy identifies Dominionism directly with the Religious Right

[8] - A concerned baptist speaks about 'Dominionism' being a cornertsone of the Religious Right's influence in the Republican Party

Given, these people are voicing opinions. Their validity is up for debate, but the opinion does exist and is fairly widespread.

Consider I have provided over three primary and secondary sources, most colleges would accept the opinion as substantiated. Cheers. - User:Primalchaos

Considering the quality of most of the links you provided, it's looking more and more like the obverse of Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Pollinator 01:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Way over the edge, Pollinator! The posted links did your homework for you. Work you should have done before raising complaints. The whole idea of NPOV is not to provide some arbitrary view of what one person consdiers the "truth," but to give the average reader enough information to be aware of a range of serious views on the subject. The issue here is the fact that many groups critical of the Christian Right make these claims. This has been TOTALLY documented by Primalchaos. Move on. Find something with a cite and make your case. Wikipedia requires more than flaming.--Cberlet 02:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not a flame at all. It's just an illustration of the tendency by some of the fringe whackos on one side to take the actions of a few fringe whackos on the other side and make it into a vast conspiracy. In both cases it would be kind of funny, except that there are those who take it with deadly seriousness. Pollinator 02:55, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

form of government that regards the Bible as the only valid reference for civics, government, scientific theory or any scholarly pursuit.

Hmmm, is this correct? It makes classifying movements and individuals as dominionists easily refutable. Just show them citing some other authority than the Bible, perhaps the constitution, their pastor, or a scientific study.--Silverback 07:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the full quote: "Some critics claim that the Christian Right adheres to the tenets of Dominionism; or even Dominion Theology </wiki/Dominion_Theology> and Christian Reconstructionism </wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism>, the latter two are related philosophies that advocate a dissolution of democracy and personal freedoms and a push toward a theocratic </wiki/Theocracy> or theonomic </wiki/Theonomy> form of government that regards the Bible </wiki/The_Bible> as the only valid reference for civics, government, scientific theory or any scholarly pursuit."
The reference is clearly only to Dominion Theology, not mere generic dominionist impulses. That critics of the Christian Right have made this claim has been totally documented. An aspect of Theonomy is that it regards the Bible </wiki/The_Bible> as the ultimate authority and reference for civics, government, scientific theory, or any scholarly pursuit." If that wording makes it clearer, we can use that wording. It is far more constructive if you find a sentence or paragraph and offer an alternative wording. Upen ended questions do not move the editing forward.
And I think the following statement is almost impossible to prove: "No major Christian Right leader has gone on record as advocating these philosophies by name." How does anyone know this? What does it mean anyway? Pat Robertson makes generic dominionist "impulse" statements all the time, as Barron has pointed out in his book of Dominion Theology. I suggest the sentence be deleted.--Cberlet 16:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It may be impossible to prove, but is easy to refute, if you can find a major Christian Right leader who has advocated these philosophies by name. Similarly, the tenets of Dominionism are not all created equal, considering the Bible a higher authority than the constitution, is not the same as advocating the dissolution of democracy and personal freedoms. The constitution is not really an authority at all, it is rather an acknowledgement that government is dangerous and must be subjected to checks and balances and held to standards. A necessary "evil" that has significantly eroded is not an authority.
It is not enough quote critics engaging in name calling, they must substantiate their classification with evidence of adherance to central tenets of dominionism and reconstructionism, otherwise these are not notable criticisms.--Silverback 15:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV: Accuracy: This article is in need of serious rework

I hardly know where to begin--this article is so obviously written by someone who doesn't have the foggiest notion what they're talking about, that it, frankly, like so many other crappy articles, casts an unfortunate shadow on the good parts of the Wikipedia. It is impossible, by reading the text of this article, to not get the feeling that its primary contributors consider the terms "Christian right" and "religious right" to be epithets to describe, alternatively, devious and nefarious corrupters of Christianity in particular and/or religion in general, or a group of people with whom they disagree on religious and political grounds, and are using this article as a platform to summarily dismiss such groups collectively as imbecilic nitwits. It needs an almost complete rewrite to remove the glaringly obvious POV, as well as to insert something resembling even so much as a foundation for why this deserves an article. In its current state, this article appears to be an excerpt from a pamphlet distributed by CNN, instructing new "journalists" on the proper way to use jargonize terminology to denigrate people with whom that network has an obvious and constant difference of opinion. It lacks a factual basis, and sounds like nothing more than just a rambling rant against what some people believe are religious nutcases. This is not encyclopedic, and leaving the article in its current state, in my erstwhile humble opinion, constitutes a gross example of intellectual dishonesty. Tomer TALK 00:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am one of the editors of this page, and my articles on the Christian Right have been published internationally in publications ranging from the Boston Globe to chapters in scholarly books. So you can imagine my surprise to read the above criticsm. Perhaps Tomer could pick one alleged factual flaw and discuss it here rather than just posting signs on the main page. The article could certainly use more information sympathetic to the Christian Right, but I urge everyone to go back to previous versions and see how much more POV it used to be. There is always room for improvement...but posting criticism and not posting new text is not useful.--Cberlet 01:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hope to see a discussion here. --Cberlet 13:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tomer is basically right, and your qualifications underscore that, rather than diminish it. Then again, your reply is also correct, you are not to be blamed for the work you have done, rather the answer is to provide more content to the article. Sam Spade 13:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, NPOV is not the same as being factually correct. It is quite easy to write an entirely factually correct article which is nevertheless dripping in condescension, bias and inappropriate framing. For example, I suspect that very few members of the Christian Right self-identify as such. I may try a bit of NPOV-ification, e.g. removing phrases like "such elements." --Jmstylr 13:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Sam Spade 13:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandals etc

Note to "Helpful Dave," I am not a vandal or a sockpuppet. You just reintroduced two typos by reverting my minor edit. Do it again and I will file a complaint. You clearly did not even look at the Diff. I invite others to check out the Diff and see. --Cberlet 14:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith. I didn't mean to revert you. I was reverting en masse a large number of pages vandalised by User:Chunkyhoyo, and I must have made a mistake here. Apologies. — Helpful Dave 14:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, hard to assume good faith sometimes. Apologies for the flame.--Cberlet 18:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)