Talk:Christian right/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Christian right. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What is being protested?

Can the folks who don't like this page pick a few things to start with and discuss them here?--Cberlet 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christian Right groups consist of conservative Christians who join in coalitions around issues of shared concern. While the Christian Right is often perceived as fundamentalist by outsiders, Evangelical, Pentecostal and other conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics also are involved.
- "also are involved"? in what, exactly?

While some outsiders think the Christian Right is just fundamentalists, there are also evangelicals, Pentecostals and other conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics involved in the Christian Right.

Either you completely missed the point, or you purposely avoided addressing it. Where can I go look up my local chapter of the "Christian Right" to verify your claims about who all might be "involved in it"? My point is, "involved" is a woefully inappropriate verb here. Tomer ^TALK 05:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is common for members of the Christian Right to be politically allied with the United States Republican Party. During the campaigns of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the Christian Right was considered to be their base of support.
- By whom, outside media pundits and those who actually listen to them, was "the Christian Right" considered to be "their base of support"?

Polling data analysis by the Ray Bliss Center at the University of Akron.

Pondering whether this article can ever be NPOV as it stands

OK, I went ahead and cleaned up the Introduction and Issues list, and I think they are now both true and non-inflammatory. However, I also mentioned that the term is generally only used as an epithet by opponents of the "Christian Right", and now that I think more about it, it seems to me that this article should mainly be about the term and its use, and not about any supposed policies of such an entity.

After all, there is no single group that calls itself "The Christian Right", so I am wary of phrases such as these:

"Some critics claim that the Christian Right makes generic dominionist "impulse" statements"

"The Christian Right" does not make statements any more than "The Jews" or "The Loony Left" make statements. Any claims made by individuals should be placed in the article about that person, or the group to which they belong. This term is way too general to put specific claims into its mouth.

I also think the 'members' list should name just a handful of especially prominent members, but even that is kind of shaky IMHO. Comments? User:Jmstylr (sig added by Sam Spade 06:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC))

Good points. i do think a list is handy tho, if only so we know who the critics are refering to w the term. I look forward to more contributions from you on this subject. Cheers, Sam Spade 06:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the previous discussion about the criticism section above. Copious links and references are provide. - User:Primalchaos

Extensive scholarship exists on Christian Right

There are dozens of scholarly books on the Christian Right or the Religious Right. It is an absurd distortion of reality to argue that this page cannot be edited to be fair and accurate and NPOV. The term Christian Right is NOT generally used as an epithet. This is simply not true. Can we please focus on actual edits and cite actual sources in print rather than armchair pronouncements that lack grounding in any scholarship? To argue that one cannot describe the Christian Right because there is no single group that claims the name is to simply dismiss political science, social science, and social movement theory.--Cberlet 14:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you're confusing studies of the involvement of religious literalists (of varying degrees) in politics with actual studies of "the religious right" and/or "the christian right". I have not argued that it's impossible to NPOVize this article, but until the past day or so, I've seriously doubted that its primary contributors were capable of doing so. That said, your allegation, that "armchair pronouncements [lacking] grounding in scholarship" is the source of objections that this article is rancidly POV, is mildly irksome, especially when you go on to laud political science, social science and social movement theory--none of which play an especially relevant role in the article as it was written when I raised my original objection, and which play evenstill, only a minor role in the content of the article. It remains a social commentary article, albeit (very slightly) less epithetical. I see work has begun to clean up some of this, and regret that I do not have time to do the proper researching and citing, as I'm quite busy with school. I perceive, however, that you have access to probably as many relevant sources as are really necessary to write a decent article on this subject. Cutting out the slant seems to be the biggest problem. This is not the Boston Globe. :-p (and yes, I'm saying that the Boston Globe’s editorial slant is painfully obvious...but nobody says the Globe has to be NPOV...) And now I'm gone until tomorrow night. *poof!* sh"sh! Tomer ^TALK 20:15, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Right, I think we should disclude all "literalists" - that is, people who write books - from the categories of people who have "studied" the religious right, especially those who write books on the topic of the religious right. We should not be misled into thinking that those books are indicative of a substantial social movement, or serves as a tacit acknowledgement and recognition thereof, and that they might provide information about the subject that they write on. Because an "actual study" would not involve writting - the knowledge accumulated by an "actual study" would be disseminated via telepathy, and would have an official stamp on it. I'm being sarcastic, obviously. TShilo a.k.a. Tomer, rather than blanket destructive criticisms of the article, I think you might find specific content disputes more constructive. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:25, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

No evidence, no cites, just opinion, and the complainant is too busy to actually edit the page. I have removed the long NPOV tag. I am having a difficult time understanding the points listed above. If anyone else wants to jump in and have a constructive conversation over specific paragraphs, please jump in and try some edits.--Cberlet 20:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If folks want to talk, that's fine, but just reverting without a note in discussion is unfair. It is not appropriate to slap an NPOV tag on a page, and then refuse to actually engage in a discussion. Complaining that you don't like a page, but not actually working on new language is just vandalism. --Cberlet 23:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No, its not. JOSH IS GAY is Vandalism. Your hostile talk page presence and obvious POV makes others uncomfortable talking to you, I assume. Sam Spade 23:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, please do not turn this into another page where you turn the discussion into a personal battle with me. I edit scores of pages with people from a variety of viewpoints with no uncivil rhetoric. If you have something constructive to add to this page, please do so. Complaining that a page is biased without stepping in to lend a hand is a waste of time. Obvioulsy reverting clear vandalism without a discussion is OK. But that is not what is going on here. This page has been getting more accurate and less POV. That's editing progress. Breezing by with complaints and no editing, and slapping NPOV tags on a page without listing a single concrete editing suggestion is not helpful. --Cberlet 01:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"To argue that one cannot describe the Christian Right because there is no single group that claims the name is to simply dismiss political science, social science, and social movement theory.--Cberlet 14:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I wonder, though, if not the the term lends itself to multiple interpretation subject to change, considering the fluid and ambiguous nature of today's political scence. New Christian Right, Christian Right, Radical Christian Right, Chrisitan Conservatism... dananator

My contributions

I'll contribute more later. Its hard work clarifying line by line that the Christian Right is not an objective group any more than the "politically correct" are. I'm sure you can relate ;) Sam Spade 02:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The current version has right-wing POV inserted and important details discarded.

"Sometimes the term Christian Right is used interchangeably with the term "Religious Right". These terms are used almost entirely as a perjorative from the atheist and non-Christian left."

This is factually false. Major leaders of Protestant denominations and groups discuss the Christian Right all the time.

"During the campaigns of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the Christian Right was portrayed by the leftist media base of support. Some feel this cost George Bush Sr. his re-election."

"Leftist media bias"? "Some feel"? This is POV and opinion unsupported by any cites.

This is not proper editing.--Cberlet 02:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually its ideal editing: were correcting one another! Hooray! Sam Spade 13:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not helpful. Some of us have been trying to make this entry NPOV. Adding more bias is not a solution. Plus the edits you made are factually false, and you deleted details that are important. This is not constructive. Please try to be less glib. --Cberlet 14:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

<obvious sarcasm>OK, so I add bias, you add NPOV. You are known for your neutrality, and are often cited by famously neutral organisations like the ACLU. I, on the other hand, display my obvious bias at every turn. Thats why there is so much concensus that your version is NPOV. <obvious sarcasm/> Sam Spade 14:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You know, although I don't dispute that "christian right" is often used by those who are such in a non-pejorative manner, form my experience, "christian right" is, so to speak, a "bad word" in secular circles, largely because disestablishmentarism is considered super-unethical; "considered harmfull", and the most fundamental premise of the "christian right" is mixing religion with politics. That is, the phrase itself connotates something manifestly undesirable. In summary, I have to agree with the thrust of the above quote: it is in fact true that this phrase generally invokes feelings of disgust in a significant population. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:38, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

What the heck is this?

Some critics claim that the Christian Right's political agendas are a form of Dominionism, and have been influenced by intellectual challenges posed by Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism; the latter two are related philosophies that advocate a dissolution of democracy and personal freedoms and a push toward a theocratic or theonomic form of government that regards the Bible as the only valid reference for civics, government, scientific theory or any scholarly pursuit. Opposition groups with this point of view include the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

For example, Chip Berlet, in an American Civil Liberties Union website interview, said in 1996 that, "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."

Who, besides User:Cberlet, suggests these things? Sam Spade 13:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not post that on this page. Someone else did. A number of groups and individuals have made similar claims. Read the discussion here for details. There just was a national conference on the subject in NYC. See: this page. --Cberlet 14:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. Sam Spade 14:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Drifting toward a propaganda tool

The page is losing NPOV and drifting toward an attack on the Christian right. For example the grouping of nut cases like Fred Phelps (and others) in the list of involved people is a propaganda device. I restored a bit of balance, as I once did before. It should not be deleted. Pollinator 20:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph should not be deleted, but some recent edits have been way too POV in bashing critics of the Christian Right. More cited material is needed. --Cberlet 20:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no criticisms/controversy sub section?

I am sure a quick google search will produce substantial information that is critical of the Christian right movement and its methods. I repeat, why is this article squeeky clean when it comes to existence of any information critical of the movement? This article currently reads like a hagiography. zen master T 21:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

See Christian_right#Dominionism. Sam Spade 21:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That is an infinitesimally tiny part of the criticism and controversy issue surrounding the christian right. It almost seems as if the Christian right designed that section themselves. May I add other factually citable sections on how others perceive and criticize the movement and its tactics? zen master T 21:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Lets see. Sam Spade 21:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Dominionism?

The secular media and the liberal politicians do not understand (or choose to believe what they wish), thus the emphasis on Doninionism, which is reflected on this Wikipedia page. The other side, which is not expressed on this page, is that the Christian right feels threatened by the increasing effort to disenfranchise them. Evangelicals (not fundamentalists!) have always engaged the issues of society, however the terms have apparently changed, and today when they engage in issues that are strongly held (and have always been), the liberal side accuses them of dominionism or church/state issues. Yet at election time each year Democrats make the rounds of all the southern black churches, oftentimes getting the pastors to tell the members how to vote. So the accusations ring pretty hollow; it's just a matter of how much you can scream foul on your opponent, while disguising that you are committing the same.

Garrison Keillor (of Prairie Home Companion fame) illustrated the issue very clearly right after the 2004 presidential election, when he made a bitter quip (thinly disguised as a joke) that "...born again Christians should not be allowed to vote." That he got a laugh for this attack on basic democracy shows how bitterly divided the nation is. And it shows, as jokes often do, an underlying reality, which is that the right is under continous barrage of marginalization, guilt by association (see the point above about the list being a propaganda tool), shrill criticism, and any other means to marginalize or destroy the right. Pollinator 21:24, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Even preventing the Christian right from voting wouldn't fix the problem since they control all the voting machine companies. So Pollinator, you are basically arguing that the Christian right should be allowed to charaterize it's critics? The real "other side" is that the Christian right is a fascist organization bent on world domination and perhaps creating a man-made apocalypse. zen master T 21:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

And people say fascism, isn't leftist, LOL! Sam Spade 21:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, fascism and the left are antithetical. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:54, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Actually Fascism is the heart of leftism. Sam Spade 22:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That comment, besides being just plain wrong, is completely inappropriate. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:02, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

See doublespeak, political correctness and censorship. This is your off topic thread, BTW. Sam Spade 23:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

See Occam's razor. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:17, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

so you support the current hagiography article? The christian right has done nothing wrong in your opinion? Is that neutral? Is it true that some people call the christian right the American Taliban? zen master T 21:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it's true that some people call the Christian Right the "American Taliban". It's also true that "some people call" Franklin Delano Roosevelt the "first Communist Presdient", and "some people call" George Bush (either one) "a tool of the Trilateralists and the Bildenberger Conspiracy". So what? "Some people call" doesn't mean anything! As the old joke supposedly told by Abraham Lincoln goes, "How many legs does a dog have if we call his tail a leg?" The answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. We need to be concerned about facts, not name-calling and "some people call" or "some people say". Rlquall 23:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of things worth being concerned about, but I don't know the extent to which "Dominionism" is really one of them. Are there such persons? Most assuredly, there are. Do they believe their position? Yes, they do. But the dirty little secret is that one could probably comfortably pack all of the actual practicing, true-believing Dominionists in North America into a large high school gymnasium, upon which point they would begin to attack each other vociferously for not being "pure" enough. Liberals/leftists being vastly concerned about Dominionists is akin to conservatives/rightists being concerned about Trotskyism. Are there Trotskyites? Aboslutely! Do they believe in the idea of world socialist revolution? Certainly. But again, all of the active Trots in N.A. would probably comfortably fit into the same high school gym, and again, would fight for control of their "party" just as hard as Republicans and Democrats do, reminding one of the old joke about why academic politics are so dirty and strident — because so little is at stake. The Left's getting its pants all in a wad over Dominionism strikes me as a McCarthyism of the Left — "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Christian Right?", followed by "proof", the proof being that one once attended a Promise Keepers rally. There are lots of things to be worried about in America, but Dominionists are about as numerous as American Nazis, and not nearly as well-armed. There are far more important things to worry about. Do their ideas influence some on the Right? Yes, just as Marx's ideas influence some on the left who are not Marxists. This is a tempest in a teapot. Rlquall 23:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! A clear thinker who's also good with words. On Wikipedia may your tribe increase! Pollinator 23:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Except this is a controvery. See on one side: The Washington Times article one and article two; and on the other side, the conference that was being covered, and the article by Sara Diamond.--Cberlet 23:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ummmm, yeah, you got one side, in fact participated in it. Did you go to the conference that presented the other side - to get a balanced view?What is an evangelical? - a seminar for media professionals Pollinator 03:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Next step is mediation

I provide cites, SamSpade provides original research, unresearched opinions, and uncited claims. Pick a paragraph, provde a cite, and lets have a real discussion. Or shall we go directly to mediation?--Cberlet 21:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You provide bias, assuming the Christian right is an objective group, and I provide NPOV, that it is a subjective label. And the problem is? Sam Spade 21:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't evade the issue. What cites do you have to back up you opinions? William Martin is the biographer of Billy Graham and a centrist historian with an impressive reputation. What problem do you have with his statement that there is a Christian Right? Your claims are without foundation. I cite my sentences. How about you? --Cberlet 21:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet is correct here. Sam Spade's attempt at rewriting the article was filled with errors of fact, grammar, and logic and largely whitewashed over the issues. ZM's point is relevant as well, there are an abundance of critics and criticisms in found society that are not present in the article. This needs to be addressed. FeloniousMonk 21:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

There you have it, all neutral sources agree, Sam is biased against smearing christians. Sam Spade 22:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Instead of being flippant, you may want to consider actually addressing the issues raised. You seem to fail to understand the difference between smearing and legitimate criticism; it's the same difference between your email to me and my response to it. FeloniousMonk 22:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe Cberlet and Sam Spade's dispute over this article is manufactured. The real issue is why is there no true criticisms or controversy section in the article -- their dispute is designed to distract and obfuscate from this fact. This article is ridiculously one sided. zen master T 21:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well thats insightful. Sam Spade 22:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Goof grief, Zen-Master, let me guess--SamSpade and I are part of a vast conspiracy?--Cberlet 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

More so than the trite flippancy offered as response. FeloniousMonk 22:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the objective of which being the prevention of criticism of the christian right, which, BTW, I am ok w! Criticize the chistian right all you want, but don't claim its a real, objective group in the narrative! Cite all you want, its no more neutral to say the Christian right is an actual movement (in the narrative) than it is for me to say that politically correctness is a real movement (in the narrative). We both know they are, but the article must remain NPOV. Do you see my point, Cberlet? Sam Spade 22:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Of the 551,000 Google results for "christian right" [1] you'll find many Christian groups that self-identify as part of the 'Christian right' movement. FeloniousMonk 22:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Compare the 2 versions

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Christian_right&oldid=13444238

vrs

Christian right

I'm not saying mine is perfect, but I think I make it clear that this is not a club w members, but rather a term pointed in a certain direction. Sam Spade 01:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

These lines are highly biased and not supported by any cites:

"These terms are used almost entirely as a label by outsiders, notably by atheist and non-Christian left."

The National Council of Churches is hardly a bumch of "atheist and non-Christian left" critics. NCC leaders have talked about the Christian Right for decades.

"During the campaigns of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the Christian Right was portrayed by the leftist media as their base of support."

During these campaigns the entire mainstream press discussed the Christian Right.

These sentences have no place in this article. Please try to actually find some published legitimate cites to back up your opinions.--Cberlet 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, Cberlet is right. Your version makes a number of controversial, unsupported assertions. Typical. FeloniousMonk 03:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that "the term is also used by Christians who wish to separate themselves from fundamentalist Christianity." 68.239.91.254 01:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Overly broad claim

"Historically, conservative Christians were influential in the abolitionism movement to end slavery, the advocation of civil rights, and prohibition."

Perhaps I'm dating myself, but I distinctly remember Southern conservative Protestant Christians, organized white Southern Baptists specifically, playing a significant role in the 1960's opposing civil rights, public school integration, and busing. Considering this, this phrase as quoted is unsupportable and overly broad. I'll be correcting it read "Historically, some conservative Christians..." FeloniousMonk 04:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

you're right. thanks. Ungtss 04:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

npov?

we good to take the tag down? Ungtss 01:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering why it was there until I checked the History. POV on this article seems to be pretty neutral at this point. I would however like to see a criticism controversy section outlining the basic arguments against the Christian Right as well as a discussion of the reasons conservative christians have felt it necessary to organize for political action. Any NPOV discussion of these two viewpoints would be helpful. isotope23 01:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

There's been a request for mediation regarding this topic and another regarding Sam Spade and Cberlet. If both parties are agreeable please contact me. I'd suggest the first show of good faith towards working this out that both of you refrain from editing this page until it is worked out. --Wgfinley 01:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I seem to remember a subsection here today regarding plagiarism... did someone remove it? I looked into Cberlet's claim that the passage in question was largely pilfered from William Lind, and indeed he was right. Cberlet is a noted journalist BTW, used to knowledgeable in dealing with concerns about plagiarism. And since the passage was wholly derivative and was presented without attribution or quotes it constituted plagiarism. Since Cberlet's claim was accurate, well-founded and detailed an actual policy violation, deleting discussion related to it is destruction or manipulation of evidence. Would whoever is responsible please step forward and explain their actions. FeloniousMonk 03:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue of lack of proper citation regarding Lind was on the Political correctness page. Here my complaint was that text was being inserted by Sam Spade that was not appropriate and represented opinon not backed by cites:

I provide cites, SamSpade provides original research, unresearched opinions, and uncited claims. Pick a paragraph, provde a cite, and lets have a real discussion. Or shall we go directly to mediation?--Cberlet 21:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I see. My mistake. I'll state my findings about the the veracity of your claim there. My apologies for coming to the wrong page. FeloniousMonk 03:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Now SamSpade is seeking informal mediation. I think we are making progress on this page, and if formal mediation is sought, I will cooperate.--Cberlet 03:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward

I think there has been progress in making this page better. I suggest we move ahead.

In my last edit I inserted specific "quoted" language used by liberal groups that some have objected to. I removed the Christian Identity link because it was not appropriate for a page on the Christian right as a coherent movement. Identity is a race hate movement. Not the same. I think the reference to the Religious right is important to preserve. Some people on the Christian right actually do use the term to describe themsleves, I think the current language makes it clear we are talking about a movement not a specific organization.--Cberlet 12:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why the quote by Martin was deleted--he is a mainstream Christian historian and biographer of Billy Graham. Someone want to explain the issue?

Wikipropaganda

Cberlet, first I have to compliment you, then I have to criticize you, for the same underlying reason.

First, I thank you for removing the Christian Identity link. The presence of this link here was, and was intended to be, propaganda - guilt by association with the lunatic fringe.

Despite all attempts by its detractors to associate the Christian Right to extremeists - a constant barrage of calling them equivalent to the Taliban, to abortion clinic bombers, etc., the movement claimed enough of America to clinch the last presidential election. They had a choice between two candidates with completely different underlying world views. If one is extremist, so is the other.

Since then the left has increased the barrage of propaganda, trying to marginalize the Christian Right, (and President Bush has made some mistakes which give aid and comfort to the propagandists).

But the rhetoric is a gross distortion, and a lot of it sneaks into Wikipedia. I suspect some of the other links are just as much propaganda devices, but I haven't the time to work on them now.

Most of the time when I see Wikipropaganda I just sadly shake my head, because I don't have time to edit (and then usually fight for) a truer article. But here is an example where I fault you, Cberlet. You obviously have the time, and you represent yourself as an expert on the Christian Right.

An anonymous editor removed this point from the article

Support for the impeachment of federal judges, in the belief that judicial activism is a threat to democracy insofar as it allows judges to make law without political accountability;

and replaced it with this

Support for the impeachment of federal judges, and opposition to an independent judiciary in the United States.

With the comment

Removed 'judiicial activism', total POV term

The article redirects to a bland stub with nothing critical in it.

Cberlet, you've made edits since then, but left this intact. Why?

The article is about the Christian Right. Yet the anonymous edit deletes completely the expression of the movement's view, and completely replaces it with the view of its critics. A 180 degree turn! Talk about POV!

I'll give some more examples of Wikipropaganda when I have more time. Pollinator 14:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I want to interject my own thoughts and opinions regarding this:

RE: "Despite all attempts by its detractors to associate the Christian Right to extremeists" I think this is a POV exaggeration and generalization.
RE: "Since then the left has increased the barrage of propaganda, trying to marginalize the Christian Right," - another example of strong POV characterization.
RE: "(and President Bush has made some mistakes which give aid and comfort to the propagandists). " to say that "President Bush has made some mistakes...." in this context is to imply that his words and actions don't accurately represent his words and actions. Perhaps some of them overlap with a more extremist POV, but that in no way diminishes the degree to which these actions/words are manifestations of his views: they are as much manifestations of his view as another other of his actions/words.
- "...which give aid and comfort to the propagandists)." "aid and comfort" is presumptuous (presuming to know the emotions of a populace) - a phrase such as "support this characterization" might be less so. Also, "propagandists" is clearly POV and derogatory.

OK my POV is that rhetoric and propaganda do not belong on Wikipedia. One of them came by the other day and stated that the Christian right was a fascist "organization" bent on world domination. You and I both know that is pure propaganda in the most derogatory sense of the word. We are hearing a lot of that stuff lately. If that editor really believes that, all his edits on the topic will be tainted. Pollinator 02:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

RE: "Support for the impeachment of federal judges, and opposition to an independent judiciary in the United States." and derivatives thereof. I think this event (that is, the political repurcussions of the schiavo case) is significant and should be included, but I think we can come up with a much more neutral wording than either of those presented. This might require more than one sentence.
RE: "180" and view of critics, wikipedia npov policy is to consider a priori each view to be equally valid, and to present both the views of supporters and critics in unbiased proportion, presented as views of their respective demographics. Article are not supposed to take sides. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 19:03, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

This is always going to be a controversial page, and we all need to try to craft an article that contains a range of views. I often prefer actual quotes from groups in situations like these, rather than sweeping statements that seem opinionated. Some liberal groups make claims about the Christian Right that I find hyperbolic, but I can't pretend these views do not exist. Some folks on the Christian Right make claims about their critics that I find alarming, but I can't pretend these views do not exist.

Let's try to find a variety of these views and claims and represent them fairly on this page.

As for a specific sentence, I cannot be held responsible for everything I don't edit or catch. Nail me when I make a mistake or post prose that is not NPOV, but give me a little slack. This page was a lot more nasty toward the Christian Right only a few weeks ago.--Cberlet 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ummm. You do have a point, and maybe I did overreach.Pollinator 02:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Using factually accurate terms & valid logic

Sorry Sam, but "Leftist" is not the correct term to refer to all critics who use the phrase Christian right in a derogatory fashion:

The term leftist is generally understood to refer to particular segment of the political spectrum. The wikipedia article on leftist bears this out.
The term liberal refers to political, social and religious groups, as well as the ideology that often unites them. The wikipedia article on liberal shows this to be the case.

Considering that the critics using the phrase Christian right as an epithet come from many different social, political and religious groups and not just the politically "left", liberal is the proper word. Since Sam Spade has made a point of insisting on "leftists" to the degree that he's reverting any instance of the use of the term "liberal" I'm replacing both phrases, "liberal critics" and "leftist critics," with the compromise phrase Some critics.

As for Sam's claim that "Christian fundamentalist" is a more widely used epithet than "radical religious right," I'd say there's no reason to not include both in the article. As it stands, the passage is logically flawed; it asserts how "Christian Right" is used as an epithet: "...to describe people, movements, and views associated with conservative political activism." Which it follows with a passage on how critics "use phrases such as "religious extremist" or "christian fundamentalist" to refer to the Christian right." That's a non sequitur; the examples provided do not lead to, nor are they equivalent to, using "Christian right" as an epithet. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist" as a propaganda term

"Fundamentalist" is one of the key words the opponents of the Christian Right use in describing the movement. It has become a standard in their repertoire of hyperbole and rhetoric. But it also can identify the user as pretty unsophisticated.

To state it more clearly: it's just plain wrong. The Christian Right has always been primarily Evangelical. Evangelicals, by nature, engage society. This is nothing new, and it's quite amusing to see so many act surprised or blindsided by recent developments, which simply are an open continuation of what evangelicals have always done - "organizing to beat the devil."

Christian Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are deeply concerned about purity - to the point where they tend to withdraw from any organization or activity that they don't see as 100% pure. Fundamentalists tend to withdraw from larger churches, as there is usually some issue in which they find fault. Then they splinter again and again, because they can't always agree with each other - sometimes even to the point of house churches of just one or two families, but usually as independent congregations with a very loose association with other similar minded ones.

Most Christian Fundamentalists have viewed politics as dirty business and refused to get involved. It's quite a joke when liberals worry about the political power they have. They don't because they are so independent. Only recently have they begun to be politically involved, because of cross pollination with other conservative Christians, despite their inheirent resistance.

Fundamentalists, by nature, do not build consortiums. Evangelicals will gladly cooperate with Catholics and Pentecostals around issues such as affirming life and opposition to abortion or euthanasia (and the Fundamentalists will attack them for doing it).

Here is one example, which I haven't had time to address: see the link to Don Wildmon. The writer of that page immediately self identifies him or her self as clueless by labeling him a "fundamentalist." The writer is also obviously hostile, so the "fundamentalist" term is probably also pejorative (ie. - Wikipropaganda).

Don is a member, in fact a clergy member, of The United Methodist Church, a mainline denomination. He's on the conservative side, to be sure, but if he were a fundamentalist, he'd be out of there in a hurry. He's an evangelical, and evangelicals make up a huge chunk of The United Methodist Church. Their concerns for purity lead them to work within the church, or else they let God sort out the doctrinal purity, while they are trying to bloom where they are planted. (This is not to debate the rightness or wrongness of Don's methods, but rather the underlying motivation.)

Wanna see what Fundamentalists think of Don? - Don Wildmon: what the fundamentalists think of him A little Googling will find plenty of other attacks.

The conference that Chip referred to: [2] was probably not so much clueless, because these were people who have done extensive studying, yet still many of them stated the same bullshit, which moves it over into the realm of propaganda.

PS: In case you think I'm dumping on Fundamentalists, I'm not. I've pointed out a weakness - that they carry their concern for purity to a fault, or at least to to the point of weakening their impact on society. Carl F. H. Henry pointed this out, and pulled a number of fundamentalists back into the main stream of evangelicalism. But Christian fundamentalists bear no resemblance to the Taliban, despite the constant propaganda attempts. They are shocked and dismayed by abortion clinic bombers, and the attempt to link a tiny number of whackos with fundamentalists is grossly unfair, in fact it's also propaganda. They are generally law abiding, salt-of-the-earth type people. If your car breaks down, would you rather it be in a fundamentalist community - or in the neigborhood around The New York Open Center referenced above? A betting man would put the smart money on taking one's chances with the fundamentalists. Pollinator 14:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gay rights

It's a fine point, but many in the Christian Right do not support criminalizing being gay in and of itself, although they often support laws against homosexual acts and banning gay marriage.--Cberlet 14:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's not a fine point, Chip; most on the CR are careful to distinguish that they oppose homosexual behavior. But thanks for making this needed edit which is more accurate. The page is improving.

BTW, have you ever followed up on getting the "other side? --

What is an evangelical? - a seminar for media professionals Pollinator 03:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes. I work at a think tank that studies the political right in the U.S., and have published popular and scholarly studies on the Christian right for over 20 years. I also am on the advisory board of the Center for Millennial Studies, and was an advisor to the PBS series "With God on Our Side." I admit I am a critic of the Christian Right, but I do try to actually do research on the topic. I am also a practicing Christian--unchurched but not uncouth... :-) --Cberlet 12:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to gay rights and support of sodomy laws, in the belief that homosexuality is a violation of Christian doctrine and should be criminalized

Being gay by definition involves sex. Unless of course you are celibate which would then make you asexual not homosexual. And the word homosexuality by root is sexuality. The Christian Right does support the criminalization of sexuality for homosexuals. I suppose you could clarify that distinction, but there is no fallacy in the current sentence. 207.224.198.170 19:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to gay rights and support of sodomy laws, in the belief that homosexuality is a violation of Christian doctrine and should be criminalized as well as gay persons should be asexual.

How is this? 207.224.198.170 20:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its rather awkward. How about Opposition to gay rights and support of sodomy laws, in the belief that homosexuality is a violation of Christian doctrine and should be criminalized; additionally, homosexuals should become asexual.

Mcpusc 18:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about trying to be accurate? There is a huge debate in the Christian Right about these issues. I challenge folks to demonstrate that most of the Christian Right wants to criminalize "homosexuality." --Cberlet 21:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay I justed listed many groups and figures that wish to criminalize homosexuality. How is that? Now show me some who don't. 207.224.198.170 22:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find any evidence that the groups and people you listed wish to criminalize homosexuality. Opposing special rights for gays is not the same thing. Do you have evidence for their positions?--Silverback 09:39, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some people think that by finding these tendencies operative in the influencing movements, they can predict the trajectory of the group being influenced. In particular cases this turns out to be true of course, which appears to vindicate the approach. It doesn't start out this way but in the end it becomes a conspiracy theory, which is not open to refutation or adjustment by counter-considerations. Mkmcconn (Talk) 12:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consider the reaction to the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. The Supreme Court held that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct were unconstitutional. According to this collection of quotations, some of the Christian Right organizations, like the Traditional Values Coalition and Focus on the Family, denounced the decision. I think it's a fair inference that those organizations would prefer to keep the criminal prohibition on the books. JamesMLane 12:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but have trimmed the list to those two. Oppossition to gay rights is probably wider spread, but this item combined that with criminalization.--Silverback 13:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's fair to say that there is "support of sodomy laws" in the mainstream Christian right (even if there is not widespread agreement on how, or even whether, to enforce them). "Criminalizing homosexuality" is not representative, though - although these might sound to some as though they are the same thing, they don't seem to be the same thing according to those in the "Christian Right". Mkmcconn (Talk) 13:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is an important distinction.--Cberlet 15:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A criminal statute was precisely what was at issue in Lawrence. As for the movement's internal divisions, we certainly shouldn't say that everyone in the Christian Right endorses all the positions listed, but "supported by some" is too weak. You could probably find "some" to support quite a few things that most would reject. We're listing views that have wide support, so I'll try that language. JamesMLane 20:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The attribution of support for criminalization, or opposition to the court decision, should be specific to groups and to the basis of their opposition. Was the reaction to the Supreme Ct decision, based on its expansion of the federal reach over states rights, or specific to gay sodomy? I apologize for my recent edit which went too far. I had forgotten the evidence that we had discussed here.--Silverback 06:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Reconstructionism & Dominionism

I didn't post the quote from me on this page, and since it was a live interview, it is a verbal off-the-cuff remark rather than my serious research. I hope folks can re-insert a paragraph looking at the issue based on the recent edits on those pages.--Cberlet 15:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

crusade

Don't guess, speculate and synthesize. Quote, cite and specify. Who says that the war in Iraq is a "Crusade"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There's plenty. Here's a few. [3][4] [5][6]

-Willmcw 03:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

George Bush said it Mark [7]. This article is about conservative Christian political and social movements strongly associated with the Republican Party. Words in presidential speaches are carefully chosen after polling of their acceptability to supporters. Meggar 04:53, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I've read these quickly, I might have missed something. The relevant quote is from the article cited by Meggar.

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.

The Newsmax article is less relevant. The article predicts that the Chinese will figure prominently in an evangelistic missionary crusade. It cites Muslims who perceive this as a threat, and who claim that Christians are praying that the war in Iraq will result in the replacement of Islam with Christianity. It does not quote Christians saying so - and should be cited, if at all, with that in mind.
The Christian century article picks up on Bush's ill-choice of words, in the 9-16 address, and follows his attempts to repair the damage done; but predominantly, it is a retrospective on the Crusades. I missed the relevance of this article to the question.
WorkingforChange notes that many Christians believe that Islam has more than its share of people who bomb schoolbuses and skyscrapers to get attention for their religious and political complaints. It predicts that evangelical Christians will use the Iraq war as cover-fire for sending their missionaries in with food, clothing, Bibles and Jesus-talk. Undoubtedly they will, which gives Muslims cause for interpreting the war as a Christian crusade. That is the Muslim view, according to the article. I miss where it puts this view in Christian mouths. The article focuses on some provocative statements by Franklin Graham.
Christian Science Monitor another article focusing on statements by Graham ("Islam is an evil religion") and Bush, and the trouble stirred up by them among the Muslims. Does it say somewhere that the Christian Right supports the war in these terms:

* Support for the invasion and war on Iraq, as well as other Arab/Muslim countries, as being the embodiment of a neoconservative "crusade" or holy war;

As I read that statement, it is using the phrase "neo-conservative crusade" as either, a synonym for "Christian right crusade" (which would be a mistake), or as a more politically correct alternative to saying "Zionist crusade". Is there another alternative? Which is it? Can you put this phrase, in the very terms in which it is constructed, in the mouth of any Christian right leader? Is Bush a leader of the Christian right? Is Graham a leader of the Christian right? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Bush and Graham are leaders in the Christian Right. Don't you think so? If not, can you suggest the names of some other leaders of the Christian right? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Is the Christian right a political movement? Then I do not see how Franklin Graham fits as one of its leaders. Is it a religious movement? Then I do not see how Bush fits as one of its leaders. The Republican party is not the Religious right. Conservative evangelicals are not the Republican party. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Who are the leaders? Tell us and we can see what they've said about the war. -Willmcw 22:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The article mentions Pat Robertson, Robert Grant, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson (Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Christian Voice, Family Research Council respectively). Ralph Reed, Roberta Combs, Gary Jarmin, Chuck Colson, Phyllis Schlafly, Tony Perkins. The list of people in the US in the article all seem to qualify - including, I suppose, Albert Mohler. And don't forget Christian Reconstructionism - if they don't say it and mean it, then it's unlikely that anyone else says it (or meant it if they said it).

It seems to me though that this misses the point that, even if Bush and Franklin were considered leaders, did they even say what this sentence is attributing to them? What does "neo-conservative" mean to the Christian right, and how does that term come into what was quoted? Is a "crusade" against terrorism the same thing as a crusade against Islam? Is it the same thing to say, "Islam is an evil religion", as to say that the war should be supported as a way of doing something about it? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Slate" magazine says:

Franklin Graham is the son of Billy Graham and a far more influential figure in the evangelical Christian community than Jerry Falwell or even Pat Robertson. It also says, Moreover, the Graham family is close to Bush. Billy Graham led Bush to Christianity in the 1980s; Franklin Graham delivered the invocation at his presidential inauguration.

Those mentions seem to establish Graham as major figure in the Christian Right.

Even more to the point, here is a quote from the Associated Baptist Press:

Falwell and other conservative Christians have drawn criticism for linking the war on terrorism with a crusade against Islamic fundamentalism. Falwell earlier called Muhammad, Islam's founder, a terrorist, then later apologized. "Jerry Falwell apparently believes the United States is waging holy war in Iraq," said Stan Hastey, executive director of the Alliance of Baptists.[8]

I think there is ample reason to say that the Christian Right views the Iraq war from a religious perspective. -Willmcw 23:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you that these statements tie Graham to the "Christian Right". He is a conservative Evangelical, and he spoke at the Presidential inauguration. The Graham family has been close to every family that has entered the whitehouse since the 1950s. Is his "agenda" a political one? Or is it religious - in Christianity, apparently unlike Islam, there is a difference. When the two are combined, as in Falwell, you should know it.

If Falwell apologized, then he admits that he said it, but now says he did not mean it. He withdrew what he said, so that it cannot be used to represent anyone except himself. And, charity would grant that he might have mis-spoken or over-stated himself. Produce someone saying it, meaning it, and sticking by it, that the war in Iraq is a religious cause carried out by military means. Show someone promoting this war as the fulfilling the will of God against Islam - show that they mean that this is a "holy war", or a "neo-conservative crusade", as the sentence put it. Find that statement - because, neither of these qualify. You are claiming that the sentence expresses a goal of the Christian right - like the elimination of abortion on demand. It's not at all hard to find clear statements to that effect, on abortion. Where is the clear statement to the effect of your sentence? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, it's not "my sentence". I didn't write it and I'm not defending it as written. What we can say, based on these sources, is that leading evangelicals and Christian conservative policticians are regarded as viewing the conflict in Iraq in religous terms. -Willmcw 02:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have used such personal terms - I mean, the sentence in question. Yes, we can put it as you have, without reservation. I think that we should specify who regards them as having this view, and the nature of "religious terms". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering the format of that list, I don't think we should give too much detail. Using that last reference, I suppose we could say that "moderate Christians" are the ones doing the "regarding". The "religious terms" are too hard to specify. If you have the language for them then go ahead. -Willmcw 04:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

How about, "Some leading evangelicals and Christian conservative politicians have made statements which have been interpreted, especially by Muslims, as connecting the war on terrorism with a religious conflict between Christianity and Islam." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Both Muslims and Baptists. And it's not the overall "War on Terrorism", it's specifically the war in the Middle East that is at issue. I added :

Support for the invasion and war on Iraq, as well as other Arab/Muslim countries. According to moderate Baptists, some Christian Right leaders seem to regard it as a "holy war".

"Holy war" is in the quote from the head of the Alliance of Baptists. If you want to change "some Christian Right leaders" for "some leading evangelicals and Christian conservative politicians" that's cool. -Willmcw 04:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is more important to be correct, than concise. Putting such hard issues in bulleted form obviously has tended to over-simplify these positions, and has contributed to the tendency to drain the positions of their ring of authenticity. I'll try to work through them with your help, as I have time. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and another axiom is that a vague statement is usually more accurate then a precise one. If we can't fit everything into the existing list entry then we can refer readers to the "U.S. foreign policy and Christian Zionism" section and add more there. Rather than digging to find sources to support a particular POV, I think that working up from available sources will give us the best result. There are no lack of commentators on the topic for us to summarize. Let's (all) work towards a comprehensive, concise, NPOV treatment. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Good job with it. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Much of the discussion in this section should refer to the article at Tenth Crusade, which is a rhetorical device used primarily by critics of the Christian right's references to the current conflicts in terms of Christianity vs. Islam. In that article, you will see that Alexander Cockburn wrote the seminal social commentary on this topic. One need not be a member of the Christian right to write widely-read social commentary on the Christian right. I am restoring the reference to this Wiki article, and possibly Cockburn. I am also removing some POV in summarization of Bush's comments as referring to a "religious" crusade against terror, as he only used the term "crusade" once, and not in an overtly religious context. Feel free to explain any opposition. 70.179.158.84

Cites Please

Many folks may not agree with critics of the Christian Right and its relationship to Dominionism, but POV opinion does not trump accurate cited summaries of the views of those critics. This is a contentious page. Tossing in opinion without actual research and cited material is not acceptable.--Cberlet 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The usual way to show that an -ism has influenced persons or a group, is to show that those persons have met the perveyers of that -ism, or read about that -ism, and then altered their behavior or position in response. This has not been documented for the Christian right. The critics appear to be saying that they see some similarities between the Christian right and some extremists, and that therefore these extremists were an influence. Sorry that doesn't make the case.--Silverback 05:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter what you think sitting at your keyboard. What matters is that a number of books and scores of articles have been published that make this claim. Three--Diamond, Clarkson, Barron--are properly cited here.--Cberlet 12:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If it is in all these books and article, then attribute the "opinions", and also state who they accuse and what their evidence is instead of smearing a whole amalgam of different voters with a conscpiracy theory. Surely if there are different books by different authors, there must be some differences, some reason each exists, some different evidence on different persons and different influencers. Instead of doing original research and synthesizing their works into a general smear, or trying to get them into the article enmass as if that makes them an authoritative groups rather than unauthoratative individuals--Silverback 14:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cites don't necessarily prove anything either. Credibility, you know...the left is increasingly sounding like the old John Birch Society. Pollinator 14:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

What is the evidence of dominionist influence against whom on the Christian right? What is the evidence for generalizing such influence on one or more "leaders" to the whole Christian right? We apparently do have evidence that Diamond and others were influenced by Reconstructionism and other extreme views, but the impact of that influence appears to have been the generation of conspiracy theories.--Silverback 16:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This whole discussion has already taken place at great length and with very good balanced results in a series of pages that include this page, and the pages on Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism, and a few others. The section on Dominionism on this page reflected that lengthy process. It would help greatly if folks would read those other pages before editing in their personal points of view. There are plenty of cites to represent all points of view here, but shotgun insertions of angst over a view that an editor finds obnoxious is not helpful.--Cberlet 16:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You should know that this is part of the process of getting good balanced results, and the process on those pages is still on-going, so don't portray them as finished "results". You have found some opinions that you want to put into wikipedia, since these aren't household names, or peer reviewed sources, their opinions are not notable without disclosure of their evidence and which conclusions are justified by the evidence and which are mere opinions and extrapolation beyond the evidence.--Silverback 16:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

These claims are absurd. Diamond is one of the leading sociologists of the Christian Right. The actual guidelines and procedures for Wiki editing have no resemblance to your demands. --Cberlet 22:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Spurious demands are part and parcel of obstructionism. Diamond is notable. FeloniousMonk 23:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

She is not notable [9]. Not a news organization or peer reviewed journal among them. --Silverback 00:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Diamond wrote two books published by Guilford press as part of a scholarly series on the political right in the U.S. Her work is cited by scores of other scholars. See: [10]. --Cberlet 02:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Diamond appears to be mischaracterized in the article, here are a couple of quotes from "Not by politics alone...":

"The point is that the Christian Right is not, contrary to the epithets used by many of the movement's critics, a "radical" force intent on a thorough overhaul of society. This is a social movement focused fairly narrowly on questions of proper family structure and "moral," that is, sexual behavior." page 7

"A small proportion of conservative Christians adhere to a postmillennial eschatology. These are advocates of Reconstructionism, or "dominion theology," who believe that they must establish a theocracy on earth before Christ will return." page 200

Kinda makes you wonder if the other authors are similarly mis-characterized in the article. We really should have quotes from them, to justify the position attributed to them, and also evaluate whether they are notable, since they seem even more obscure than Diamond.--Silverback 07:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Diamond is quoted accurately. You have taken a large body of work out of context. She, (and I) complain that some liberals get hyperbolic about the CR. This is noted here in the Wiki article. She does argue that Dominion Theology influenced the CR. That is not out of context. What is in error, in her view, is the idea that most people in the CR are either postmillennialist or have embraced Dominion Theology. Dominionism is not the same thing as Dominion Theology. That's why we created two pages to help explain the difference. --Cberlet 13:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

We are back to my original "spurious demands", what is her evidence for generalizing that Dominion Theology influenced the CR? The specifics should allow allow us properly characterize her "research", which I remind you is not peer reviewed "research", it is more like a "research paper" where she footnotes her evidence, and then writes a book length opinion piece. The only difference I can see between this and the Kevin B. MacDonald crap, is that Christians are fair game and Jews aren't.--Silverback 19:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Note that happening to share some ideas is not "influence". Also when Diamond uses the term "prevalent" it is unclear what she means. Those who wrote the section that generalized to reconstructionism and dominion theology "influencing" the "agenda", need to detail what they meant by "influence". Did persons who had read about reconstructionism and dominion theology merely come up with good arguments which contributed to support for the agenda, without revealing the nefarious source of these arguments? Or what? What is this "influence", that evidently does not have an innocent explanation, or that perhaps does?--Silverback 19:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback seems to be claiming that if he disagrees with the published conclusions of a well-known and credentialed author, he gets to disallow the material. This is simply not true. We need to move beyound this unconstructive and false claim.--Cberlet 15:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You want to use her credentials in an unrelated area, to get her opinions accepted as authoritative, without having to disclose her evidence and methods as she would have to do if she were to publish in peer reviewed journals consistent with her credentials. Peer reviewed journals would not accept her opinions without substantiation and neither should we for such an unnotable figure. The theocracywatch and yuricareport cites for the other critics are just POV websites that are an embarassment to cite in an encyclopedia. Please respond to my points rather than dismissively characterizing my position. --Silverback 23:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You demand more cites yet give none yourself. This is outlandish. Have you actually read any of Diamond's book Roads to Dominion? Guilford Press is a respected scholarly publisher. You demand that we explain how Diamond did her research. That is not a Wiki standard. She has two books published by Guilford, and wrote chapters in scholarly books. She has been accurately cited here. You are being obstructionist without bothering to do any actual research yourself. --Cberlet 00:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I gave you two cites above from Diamond herself, yet you ask me to prove a negative. You are unwilling to even state what Diamond means in your quote, by her use of the term "prevalent", yet you claim my citations are taken out of context. At least their plain meaning is clear. You are even unwilling to state what you mean by your use of the term "influence" in regard to the agenda, and you provide no evidence to back it up. I searched for evidence to back up the influence claim, and found none, but I shouldn't have to prove a negative. You cite two attack sites for the other non-notables you attribute the "influence" generalization to. You still haven't answered how these are different in method or strength of evidence from MacDonald. So don't mischaracterize my statements here, you can't buffalo your way through this one.--Silverback 04:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Buffalo Chip responds: The issue is that you are not doing any research other than Internet searches. There are many cites in scholarly books and articles that discuss the influence of dominionism on the Christian Right. I have replaced the Diamond quote with one from a mainstream professor of religion, William Martin.--Cberlet 14:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Much better, at least this quote tells us who is being talked about with some specifics. Robertson is a bit of a loose cannon, and is in the news today for calling for the intelligence agencies to assassinate Chavez of Venezuala. While you might turn your other cheek to this guy, you probably shouldn't turn your back.--Silverback 18:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

CNN analyst Bill Schneider on Pat Robertson, "I'd say he has a significant following, but even in the evangelical community, he really leads a small segment of it, the pentacostals, there are other evangelical leaders, for instance Rev. Billy Graham, who have a much wider and more pervasive following and a much more moderate political point of view.".--Silverback 23:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Considering that worldwide some estimate as many as 600 million holiness/pentecostals/charismatics, any prominent leader in that segment of the christian spectrum is arguably more significant than Billy Graham, regardless of his wider acceptance. Even in the US, evangelicals, without the charismatics and pentecostals, are not the same force. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought even saying he lead the pentacostals was an overstatement, most are not into TV ministries. However, there is no doubt his political influence is greater than Graham's, because Graham doesn't attempt to lead politically, despite his occasional meetings with presidents.--Silverback 04:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

What is being protested?

Can the folks who don't like this page pick a few things to start with and discuss them here?--Cberlet 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christian Right groups consist of conservative Christians who join in coalitions around issues of shared concern. While the Christian Right is often perceived as fundamentalist by outsiders, Evangelical, Pentecostal and other conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics also are involved.
- "also are involved"? in what, exactly?

While some outsiders think the Christian Right is just fundamentalists, there are also evangelicals, Pentecostals and other conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics involved in the Christian Right.

Either you completely missed the point, or you purposely avoided addressing it. Where can I go look up my local chapter of the "Christian Right" to verify your claims about who all might be "involved in it"? My point is, "involved" is a woefully inappropriate verb here. Tomer ^TALK 05:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is common for members of the Christian Right to be politically allied with the United States Republican Party. During the campaigns of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the Christian Right was considered to be their base of support.
- By whom, outside media pundits and those who actually listen to them, was "the Christian Right" considered to be "their base of support"?