Talk:Christian right/Archive 6

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edit-warring

Some new material was removed, with the edit comment claiming "Removing lede mention from outdated source with no page nos, pointless, irrelevant George Bush Bob Jones information."

What concerns me is that the comment is somewhere between misleading and false. The book is indeed from 1996, which young people might view as the deep past (Toa is 17). However, what it says is no less true today, as shown by more recent sources. I would simply supplement the 1996 book with a 2012 one: http://books.google.com/books?id=lqf3KBaqgI8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. I believe this addresses any issue of age.

As for page numbers, I used direct quotes and provided a link to Google Books, so anyone who wants to know what page these words came from can trivially search. I would call this claim misleading. If policy demanded that we include pages, these could be included; it's not an excuse to remove the material.

Finally, the passage on Bob Jones University was removed due to a lack of citations. I restored it with a citation. I have no idea what "pointless, irrelevant" is supposed to mean. Frankly, even the title of the source makes it clear that it's entirely relevant: "Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right". Note that Toa somehow confused Bush with Reagan.

In short, I believe that Toa's revert was hasty, counterproductive and indefensible. On this basis, I feel compelled to revert it, which I believe will bring me up to 2RR for the day. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your source for George W. Bush "speaking" at BJU does not even mention Bush! Deliberate misuse and abuse of sources is not something to do lightly. I read the actual article -- the point of the article was the dispute between Reagan and the "Christian Right" while you seem to think the title links the two! And per the DRN close, using WP:FRINGE sourcing is not the way for you to proceed -- the removal of such fringe sources is required by clear consensus here and at the dispute review noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The citation I provided was to confirm the connection between BJU and the CR. Now that you've articulated Toa's unclear edit comment, I understand that you also want a citation for Bush's visit in 2000. That's easy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And now you use SYNTH to connect the two claims from two sources? And your "name" for the second source is not in that source ... Bob Jones Racist is not the name of the article cited (which is Bob Jones University ends ban on interracial dating), nor in the article cited, but only in the html address you searched for -- but not in the "real" html address http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/index.html. Sorry -- SYNTH is also contrary to policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what SYNTH means. Seriously, I don't think you do. The Bush citation is sufficient to support the content. The CR citation was intended to support inclusion in the article. Two purposes, two citations; no synthesis. As for the URL, I'll be glad to update it to a more neutral one. I just used the one I found. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break to allow for feedback

Collect's big purge was bold, but I didn't simply revert it, although I could have. Instead, I tried to discuss it with him, and turned it into an opportunity to improve the level of scholarship in this article. I've added citations, included direct quotes and removed what cannot currently be supported. The biggest casualty has been the timeline, which is quite accurate but would preferably be sourced to avoid charges of undue synthesis.

It would not shock me if someone decided to revert the work I just did, but I'd suggest that it would be counterproductive to do so. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The content is coherent, informative and seems to be well researched, I made some minor copyedits and a few more may be helpful.

I would actually suggest expanding the Media section to include subsections for some of the major media outlets used by the Christian right (CBN, Fox, 700 Club), perhaps a short paragraph on each. – MrX

ETA: When I commented, I did not realize the full extent of Still's edits. However, looking at the previous version, I'm left with the impression of an article stripped of most of its context and meaning. With the picture on the right, it almost seemed like an homage to Jerry Falwell. – MrX 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reverts and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality are pretty obvious to others. That you consider the idea of dispute resolution to be beneath contempt is a problem for you as an editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should self-revert all the changes you made. You may be aware that this article just went through a major DR, and was changed to reflect the results of it. You chose not to be a part of the process. Even if you had, you would not be permitted to simply make changes to reflect your own position, but the fact that you declined to be part of the process, makes this all the more relevant. Despite failing to be part of the process, I don't support keeping you out of this process, but I think you should propose any changes on this page, and get consensus before implementing them. If they are good and supportable, they will be supported.

If there hadn't been an edit after yours, which I can't quite figure out, I would have reverted you, and asked that you get consensus.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific objections? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the objections to the information put in the media section? It seems factual and neutral as far as I can tell. Is it really controversial that the Christian right uses the media to advance their causes? – MrX 14:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I realize this isn't the place to make policy, but I think we should consider some policy. You used the term "counterproductive". I'll give an example of counterproductive. Participating in a DR is hard work, and if you participate, you might feel morally obligated to accept the resolution. Far easier to renege, and then make whatever edits you want. So your ideal decision is to ignore DR, then do what you want. As a project, why would we want to encourage that? There ought to be a penalty for refusing to engage in DR. I think prohibiting such people form editing is too harsh a penalty, but I'd support requiring such people to get a consensus before making an edit to the article, for some prescribed period of time (say, a year.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My specific objections are to the process. You found a way to game the system. The edits may be fine, but that's not the point. It is tough enough to get editors to contribute to DR productively. What if more follow your lead and realize the best option is to simply ignore DR. This talk page is not the place to debate DR process, so I'll stop soon, but I'd be appreciative if you could share your thoughts. Why on earth should anybody participate in DR, if they see that your approach works?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think anyone should bother with WP:DRN. It doesn't work; no actual resolution of the dispute occurs, except sometimes by coincidence. In any case, if you have no objections to this content, then I'm not sure the discussion belongs on this page. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I support your right not to be involved, but I urge you to let others reach their own conclusions. I was "kicking the tires" on a potential proposal (which I agree belongs elsewhere). I wondered if there was an obvious objection to it, but you haven't identified one, so maybe I'll take the next step. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I was simply sharing the conclusions I've reached, not insisting that you agree.

I'm not clear on what your potential proposal is, so I can't comment on it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why even go through the bother of proposing a policy? Just create a new section below (or at ANI) and propose a topic ban and see what the community says. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, Sphilbrick, but could you please explain why you removed the mention of the GOP in the lead? It has two strong citations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary? (It says, see talk page)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Weight musing

I'm going to do a little OR here, but I am not proposing this go into the article, I just want a little perspective on the source. The Amazon book rank of The Right and the Righteous is 616,200. Per this graph, a sales rank of 500,000 corresponds to a sale per week of one book (by Amazon). A rough rule of thumb is that total sales are 6 times Amazon sales. So if we assume a rank of 500,000 instead of 600,000, this book might be selling six copies a week. I do not wish to suggest that a book can be fully dismissed, simply because the sales count is so low, but it does raise wp:weight issues.

I am fully supportive of keeping this source as one of many, but think we should avoid over-reliance on a book that just barely exists. Just in case this argument jumps up and bites me, I want to be clear that it is context sensitive. If one is talking about a more obscure topic, say, Scrimshaw techniques, I would expect that the authoritative books on the subject might be low selling. In a happy coincidence, I picked this subject more or less at random, but there is a book Scrimshaw Techniques, which has a sale rank of 668,670. If a book on religion and politics, which has a naturally large potential audience, is barely outselling a book on scrimshaw, it is my opinion that this book isn't making its case very effectively. Doesn't mean it should be excluded, but it suggests that we need a broader array of sources.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm losing track here. You asked for a page number and I got it for you. You suggested moving the quote into a section while keeping a paraphrase in the lead, and I agreed but haven't finished coming up with a mutually agreeable plan. Can we please resolve these issues before we move on? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I was making the abstract point, that quotes generally belong in the main article, with the lede used for summarization. (I have no idea whether this point has broad support, but I think it makes sense and a very cursory review of FA articles supports it) That was before I found the quote, and see that it doesn't (IMO) support your point, which point I made in the relevant section. Then I decided to make a different point, which I made in a different section.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think you understood the quote. Yes, it was speaking of the future, but that's not the part that's important. What's important is that it acknowledged that CR and GOP were already intertwined. Switching points only confused things. 17:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you making that point here? I created a separate section to talk about a separate issue. If you want to discuss the "intertwining" issue, please discuss it in the section above. It is confusing to see your comment in this section relating to a point made above. (Or maybe you are making a very subtle "interwtwining joke?)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Duck season

Apparently, it's open season on the Christian Right. Now we have another editor making massive deletions without bothering to talk about them here.[1] Interestingly, the stated reasons are false or misleading, but I'm not going to engage in an edit war. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. If you are looking for articles to improve, then Time travel might be relevant. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to Darkness Shines' edits, they make perfect sense to me. He/she removed unsourced content, juxtapositioned statements that seem to be synth vios, and the a reference purported to support the idea that Fox News is the preferred news network for the Christian right. While that is almost certainly true, it does fail verification based on the source provided. – MrX 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced crap and other crap which has no place in this article is hardly "massive deletions" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're deleting so much, so quickly that there's no chance to respond. Let me give you an example of why this is a problem.

Take this edit, which had the comment "Reference does not call this school Christian right, I guess it was here just for Bush. Pure SYNTH)"

Well, the reference you deleted didn't say it was Christian Right; the reference you left did. So your comment wasn't false, just completely misleading.

As for Bush, I think you simply didn't read the reference that you deleted. It explains that the consequence of the Bush visit is that BJU had to change its policies. I suspect the article said as much at some point, but it got lost in the haste to delete things. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You took two sources to make shit up. That is SYNTH, which is why it was removed. Bush going to talk at that school has naught to do with this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not what WP:SYNTH says: read it. One source was there to show that BJU belongs in an article about the CR. Full stop. Another source is to confirm that Bush spoke there and to support the missing sentence about the consequence of his visit. If SYNTH meant what you thought it did, we couldn't have any articles with more than one source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You took two sources to make shit up. One which says the school is CR, the other to say Bush spoke there, implying that Bush is CR, so yes it is synth. I also note a fair few citations to books are missing page numbers, that is an obvious issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not what WP:SYNTH says: read it. One source was there to show that BJU belongs in an article about the CR. Full stop. Another source is to confirm that Bush spoke there and to support the missing sentence about the consequence of his visit. If SYNTH meant what you thought it did, we couldn't have any articles with more than one source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You said:

Now we have another editor making massive deletions without bothering to talk about them here

Have you read WP:BRD? Someone BOLDly added "Later that year, Ronald Reagan was elected President with broad support from the Christian right" , then Darkness Shines REVERTed it, and now we can discuss it. Or you can propose an alternative process, in which material can be added by anyone at anytime, but never removed unless thoroughly discussed first, but that proposal belongs elsewhere.

Remind me, please: when did someone "boldly" add it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, four days ago.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Then it's not BRD. It's B[...]RD. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious. If it was added a year ago, the point would still stand. I grant that material that has remained in an article for multiple years deserves mention, if not before, then contemporaneously, but the notion that a four day old edit is settled is ...laughable. (I checked your edit history to see if you were brand-new. Nope, so not sure how you missed this.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There may well be reason to question this content, but it's neither so old that it has a ^{[citation needed]} from 1492 nor so new that BRD applies. It should be discussed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Section Partisan activity of churches

First reference in this section is a deadlink. Second source does not mention Cr[2] it is about a priest who told his flock to vote for the other guy. The third is about some of said flock being excommunicated[3] by said priest for voting for the wrong guy. Forth is an Op-Ed[4], which BTW fails verification, It does not mention "The Alliance Defense Fund started the Pulpit Freedom Initiative" it does mention "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" however, same thing? But as a source it is junk as it can be used for opinions only. The last source contradicts the Op-Ed, according to it was the Alliance Defending Freedom which began Pulpit Freedom Sunday[5] But I fail to see what any of this has to do with the CR, given not one of the sources used actually use the term. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll check out the citations, but the subject is relevant because the Christian Right explicitly denies separation of church and state.[6] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The more I read from you, the more concerned I get. The article is flawed. It says "The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution." No, that's a common myth. IIRC Jefferson coined the phrase, but it isn't in the Constitution. What the Constitution says is different. Moreover, the article doesn't support the claim.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, we have an article on the subject Separation of church and state.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That is from an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source and is about Romney, not the Christian Right. It says that he believes ""some" Americans have taken the separation of church and state too far, "well beyond its original meaning."" There is nothing about him wanting to establish a Church. Note that England and Wales has a state church but that does not mean that the parties that have governed the UK are Christian right. TFD (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, we have Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#The_First_Amendment, which has citations that confirm precisely what you denied. Step one is understanding the issues. Step two is lining up the citations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The amendment says, ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Romney is not suggesting that the LDS or any other church become established. Government will not appoint bishops, citizens will not be taxed to pay for the church, laws will not be passed enforcing church doctrine, and there will be no eccesiastical courts, in other words, no established church. TFD (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't "confirm precisely what you denied", although I can see how you would make that mistake. You also seem to be conflating "Partisan activity of churches" with "Separation of Church and State". They aren't the same issue, do you understand the difference?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember, you brought up the following line:

"The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution."

You then denied that it was true, yet the link I posted shows otherwise. Looks pretty clear to me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are some facts:

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.
Many people think it does, which is why I said it is a myth
Jefferson used the phrase in a letter
Some Supreme Court decisions, such as Reynolds v. United States quote Jefferson

Do you disagree with any of these? --SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a key word is "enshrined". What does this word mean to you?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, this isn't complicated. The section I linked to explains it quite well:

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

In short, you quoted that statement about the first amendment and proceeded to argue against something totally different. However unintentionally, you created a straw man. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Massachusetts had an "established church" until 1833 -- which was after the First Amendment was adopted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Most states had established churches. The prohibition was against Congress, but the 14th amendment has been interpreted as extending the restriction to states. TFD (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

IOW "separation of church and state" only applied to the federal government until the 14th Amendment - right? Collect (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, "separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution", just as the article said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although it was not until 1940 that the Supreme Court decided this in Cantwell v. Connecticut. TFD (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, and not unusual. Consider that, until Roe v. Wade, the 14th Amendment was not understood as supporting the right to an abortion. It's common for interpretations to come long after the original text was written (but don't tell Scalia).

Anyhow, we're getting slightly off track here. The key point is that the quote in the article is entirely correct so we need to move on already. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No -- what has been shown is that you are stretching the wording as far as possible when it is clear that the meaning of "separation of church and state" was "enshrined" nowhere in the Constitution until after the 14th Amendment was passed. And possibly, as TFD notes, not until 1940. SPhilbrick is on very solid ground on this. Collect (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no logical way to arrive at that conclusion without ignoring the evidence given above. Separation was enshrined in the 1st amendment, broadened in the 14th. You appear to be dragging your feet here, as you did earlier. Remember when three editors had to tell you to stop it already? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no logical way to arrive at your conclusion. "Enshrined" is an incorrect word. The first amendment was (re)interpreted to include "separation of church and state", possibly around 1940. After that time, it was perhaps "enshrined" in the Constitution. If the source says otherwise, it is unreliable (WP:FRINGE) as contrary to the weight of scholarship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, any sources that disagree with you, as by explicitly using the word "enshrined" in this context are unreliable, whereas you are perfectly reliable.[7][8][9][10][11][12]

Sorry, Arthur, but when it comes to choosing between you and our sources, it's never you. Don't take it personally; policy demands that we ignore what you "know" to be WP:TRUTH and instead go with the experts. Now, I'm sure some of these sources aren't going to pass muster (do we really trust Mitt Romney on constitutional law?) but there are so many here that your statement is refuted past any semblance of reality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If there's a conflict between (almost all) ~~constitutional scholars~~ experts and news media, then the news media is unreliable for that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you were a constitutional scholar. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. <redacted personal attack>. I could call a few Constitutional scholars to verify, but I've read enough works of Constitutional scholarship to recognize that "separation of church and state" was not the original intent of the 1st Amendment, nor was it recognized as a consequence of the 1st Amendment until recently. Can you provide an example of a court case or scholar establishing "separation of church and (Federal) state" as a consequence of the 1st Amendmeent before 1861? (1940 seems more likely, but 1861 seems necessary for it to be "enshrined".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to gently point out that you just moved the bar again, so I'm not going to play. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Does this mean you will stop editing here? --Mollskman (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. [13] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You're perfectly welcome to restrict him from your user talk page. But I didn't move the bar. You still need to find a scholarly source on "separation of church and state" which says it is "enshrined" in the First Amendment. I'm trying to avoid saying that you don't understand English, but if "separation of church and state" in law followed the First Amendement by at least 70-odd, if not 140-odd, years, it would be irrational to say it was "enshrined". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Still's claim was that the religious right denied the separation of church and state and provided a link to an article entitled, "Mitt Romney: Church State Separation Taken Too Far By Some". It is possible to object to the interpretation of some amendments of the constitution without objecting to the individual amendments themselves. Liberals for example objected to the recent interpretation of the First Amendment to include corporations. Romney's complaint is actually consistent with the views of the supreme courts of Canada and Australia on similar constitutional provisions. TFD (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The UK still has a state church, so a similar lack of church/state separation in Commonwealth nations should not surprise us. However, despite Arthur's new demand for scholarly sources (after he couldn't refute the ordinary reliable ones I threw at him), America isn't like that. It's taken some time for us to understand the full consequences of separation, but there's no going back to the old days.

Focusing on the article, I would suggest that Mitt Romney is not a genuine member of the religious right. It's not just me saying it, but the religious right itself, which accounts for his poor reception. Keep in mind that I don't want the article to focus on this; I'm just explaining my reasoning.

If we look instead at the candidates of the religious right -- Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and (especially) Paul -- you'll find plenty of statements directly denying separation of church and state. And if you look at religious right organizations, such as the FRC, you'll find the same.

Either of us can come up with citations; I'm just talking it out for now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Can we keep discussions together? There's a new section below, talking about something else, but ISS is spilling this discussion down there, which I will close. As for this discussion, I've seen ZERO sources supporting the notion that separation of church and state is "enshrined" in the First Amendment. It is so obviously wrong, I wonder if ISS has a unique meaning of the word "enshrined". I asked before, I'll ask again, what do you think it means?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Separation of Church and State" by Darien McWhirter (Oryx books 1994) [14] states on page 7

Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court spent very little time on the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The Court decided that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government. State and local governments were free to do whatever they wanted, limited only by the bills of rights contained in state constitutions. Most of the governmental activities that touched people's lives were carried on by state governments, not by the federal government

In short - the First Amendment was not construed as meaning anything other than a ban on a national established church. And that the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily used to overturn state laws absolutely unrelated to religion:

For example, the Court overturned a New York law that limited bakers to a 60-hour work week. Other laws declared unconstitutional had attempted to protect a worker's right to join a labor union.

The modern SCOTUS position is thus shown as post-WW II for the "separation" claim being absolute. This should be dispositive of the claims by Still24 Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no question that ISS is wrong (and this should be the nail in the coffin). I was merely entertaining the possibility that ISS has a non-standard understanding of the word "enshrined", to see if I could understand why ISS persists with the claim, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because he likes a good WP:Battleground little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, let me show you something from one of the five citations I posted earlier.[15]

The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Earlier, you said you'd "seen ZERO sources supporting the notion that separation of church and state is 'enshrined' in the First Amendment." Are you willing to admit that now you've seen at least one? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for SPhilbrick, but that isn't a source for what you say it is. "Freedom of religion" is not "separation of church and state", even if (at least some of the) Founding Fathers probably intended "freedom of sect of Christianity", rather than what we would call today "freedom of religion", which is still different from "separation of church and state". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than point out that you didn't read the source, let me cut to the chase:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

I wonder if this guy was a constitutional expert... I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Section Electoral activity

Need a little help with this one. First ref goes to the family research council[16] not a poll so fails verification. Second ref goes to the CSM[17] but mentions "Social conservatives", "the conservative group Family Research Council" and "conservative Christian" no mention of the Christian right that I can see. Also does not mention any polls which it is what the source is meant to be supporting. The last source is a deadlink.[18] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The FRC is a major Christian right organization. There are citations in that article to confirm this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Major? cite? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant to this section

padding

Ask a constitutional scholar. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Off topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me help you understand. When I gave you multiple reliable sources on the whole "enshrined" thing, you spoke of mysterious constitutional scholars who would refute these sources, but never provided any. A little bit later, you asked for citations, which I found ironic. That's why my comment had a smiley.

I hope you understand my humor now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did not give "multiple reliable sources" for "enshrined". Even if you did, we are allowed to ignore "reliable" statements which are obviously false, given verifiable facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not one bit of what you just said is true and anyone capable of glancing earlier in the page can see this for themselves. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Let editors see for themselves whose statements are supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I find this very interesting, especially given the source: http://www.frc.org/op-eds/social-economic-conservatives-need-each-other I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're right; that's not a reliable source except possibly for FRC's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's absolutely a reliable source for the beliefs of the Christian right. Note this part, from the conclusion:

The Republican Party needs both of these constituencies. Alienating either will cause a party split. But it's not just that Republicans need to make sure they don't alienate either of these groups. Republicans should embrace them. Not only do their agendas not conflict, they reinforce and enhance each other.

Now that's what I call relevant! It would have to be ascribed to its source, but it's confirmational gold. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems relevant, if the opinion is notable. It disconfirms what you've been trying to put elsewhere in the article, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to regret asking, but here's your cue: Really, how so? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit to lede

I removed:

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with".^[1]^[2]

I looked at the google book source, and did not see support for the claim that "it is 'intertwined with'". I may have missed it, feel free to point it out. I'm not convinced that a single mention in a non-scholarly source is adequate for such a strong statement; we can debate that, but let's start by confirming whether the claim is even supported by the source.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

References

^ The Right and the Righteous: The Christian Right Confronts the Republican Party by Duane Murray Oldfield
^ Cite error: The named reference williams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

To be fair, it's not a strong statement at all. The intimate connection between the Christian Right and the GOP is common knowledge and strongly supported by any number of sources. I chose these two; I can come up with many more. So can you, really.

As for the quote, it's from page 2. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the word "interwined" on page two. Can you show me where? --SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did find the phrase on page 56, but it doesn't support your sentence.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not 56, 2. If you're having trouble finding it with your eyes, just use the search box on the left side. The exact sentence is "The Republican party's identity will be intertwined with that of the Christian Right for the foreseeable future." Do you see it now?

Anyhow, I was originally going to use http://www.thenation.com/article/168533/whos-afraid-secular-government#, but chose the book instead. If you'd like, we can use all three sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of sources is a recurring problem here -- with claims made which are not in the source provided, and (see the DRN discussion) cases where a source says the opposite to what is claimed. And the use of editorial opinion as a substitute for fact where living people are concerned is a major problem as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what your general comments have to do with this specific issue. In particular, the sources I used directly support the passage in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My page 2 starts, "ality, and women's right." Are we looking at the same material? --SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see the sentence now. Not sure why the search for "intertwined" missed it.

As you note, the full sentence includes "The Republican party's identity will be intertwined..." (emphasis added). In other words, a prediction by the author. Very different than the "factual" statement you used. In addition, the book was written in 1996 about events in 1992. It may or may not be an accurate summarization about the events of a short period of time, but you are using this narrow time period to make broad claims about a much longer period of time. If you'd like to argue that one author talks about the influence in one election cycle, and makes personal predictions about the future, we can debate how much weight that deserves in a timeline section of the article, but it isn't supportive of such broad pronouncements.

There are other problems in the lede as well. A well-written lede is a summarization of the most important aspects of the article. As such, an external quote in the lede is a red flag. Not prohibited, but there ought to be a good reason why an external quote is in the lede. The support from "Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists" certainly is a relevant issue belonging in the article, but it doesn't sound like so important that it belongs in the lede. The sentence I removed is a more important point (if properly supported) but would be better used as a quote in the main article, then summarized in the lede.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the confusion came from the fact that the pages were returned out of order. It looks like an honest mistake on your part so I'm not going to worry about it.

Now, as for article organization, sure, I'm all for improving it. What section do you think the GOP connection belongs in, in addition to the lead? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I have a suggestion in response to my own question. We could put the quoted version under the "Partisan activity of churches" section after renaming it to "Partisan political activity". We could then put a paraphrase in the lead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't confused, the pages weren't out of order, and I make many mistakes, but I don't recall one today, other than the decision to engage in this discussion. In a section below, you mention "losing track" so maybe you missed my statement that the quote doesn't support your point. I put it up in the section where the point was being discussed.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that you quoted " intertwined with", a prediction about the future, and skipped over the preceding sentence, which says "The Christian Right does not fit neatly into the Republican Party...". In a section below you say "not the part that's important". If the material you quoted isn't important, we are probably done here, although we might consider whether the observation actually made by the author deserves inclusion. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely true that the CR doesn't fit neatly, as it's concerned about social issues, not fiscal ones, which is what the GOP is primarily about. Despite his concerns, an uneasy compromise has been reached. For example, if you look at the FRC's platform, you'll find that it's all about sex and drugs and morality, but also includes low taxes. That's the big tent at work.

Now, back to the quote:

The Republican party's identity will be intertwined with that of the Christian Right for the foreseeable future.

This states that the GOP's identity is currently intertwined with that of the CR. The prediction is secondary, but happens to also be true. The 2012 book makes that clear, but doesn't have punchy quotes. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take your silence here as agreement. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That is one of the most inane posts in the entire history of Wikipedia. Silence is not consent. And "silence for five hours" is an absurd concept of "silence" in any case. The edit you seek to make is contrary to reliable sources and is not borne out by the source you choose to misuse. Sorry Still --- your position is tendentious and untenable. Collect (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've shown that the edit is supported by three strong sources, so I don't know what you're talking about here.

There was some confusion on SPhilbrick's part about the "intertwined" statement. I clarified it for them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Five hours. And you insist on your interpretation of sources which is not borne out by the others reading the sources, not borne out by the words in the sources, and only borne out by your assertion that it is the WP:TRUTH. I think a clue should be given: Wikipedia does not use what editors know to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU LIKE BOLD, BUT IF YOU WANT ME TO SHOUT, I CAN DO THAT. NOW, IT HAPPENS THAT YOUR SUMMARY IS NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY ACCURATE. WE HAVE SOURCES THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE LEAD BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THOSE SOURCES. AS A HELPFUL (AND LOUD) EDITOR, IT IS MY JOB TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND, WHICH I HAVE DONE. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU DO NOT CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND ABOUT HOW THESE SOURCES SUPPORT THE LEAD? ALSO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, HOW ABOUT WE BOTH STICK TO NORMAL LEVELS OF EMPHASIS, OK? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason the bold button is there. Calm down.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear in context that I was calm and was instead pointing out Collect's abuse of bold. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, he didn bold everything with caps. You took it to the extreme and that was just disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Does anyone have any objections to restoring the sentence about the connection between the GOP and Christian Right? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you joking? Because if you aren't then you are suffering from a major case of WP:IDHT, which in case you didn't know is WP:Disruptive. It is crystal clear that the other editors here don't agree with your position, and the fact that you assume that somehow despite everything said above that they somehow changed their mind and implied consent with silence is galling. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was side-tracked into arguments about excessive use of boldface fonts, so I'm shifting it back to the original topic. If you have an objection, please state it. If you wish to avoid repeating the reason, a diff will do. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you missing the part of the pre-sidetracked conversation where other editors clearly stated that you misused the sources? This is a serious problem, and yet you wish to restore content under the cloud of that accusation? Don't even THINK about restoring this without getting a verbal consent here or by running the material and source by RSN. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about when he couldn't find the quote even when given a page number or when he couldn't understand that statements about the future continuing are also statements about the past? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the concerns raised after this "confusion", most notably this politely worded response [19] which just barely stops short of accusing you of source abuse. Note that Collect also makes a similar claim of source abuse [20] after this confusion was put to bed. The fact that you three disagree about what the sources say is another matter. If you think that Sphilbrick and Collect are wrong about this interpretation, take it to RSN. Having been informed that other editors feel this source is being misused, no one should use this source in this manner until others respond. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the right answer is to boldly use this perfectly good source and allow them to go to WP:RSN if they want to impeach it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The right answer is not to use the source for something it doesn't say. The source may be good, but what you're using it to support isn't there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Failure to BRD

Belchfire recently removed a new section on , claiming "removing unsourced and poorly sourced material". The truth is that it had two strong citations -- one from Focus on the Family, the other from the American Psychological Association. It was well-written, neutral and contained no claims that are controversial. So, on the whole, Belchfire's edit comment claim seems to have no merit. Removal of this material serves only to harm the article by making it less comprehensive.

Belchfire failed to follow BRD by opening up a section to explain his revert and allow discussion, so I'm cleaning up after his mistake. I'd like him to justify the revert here, or for someone else to do that for him. Obviously, if nobody ever does, we're going to wind up including the material, so this should motivate you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is amazing. [21] little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This comment is a personal attack against me. I've tried to hat it and formally requested that you redact it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your inconsistancy is the problem here Still and it was not a personal attack as much as a criticism of you personal behavior.It did not call you a name, it stated that you say one thing and do another. You have lost all support I may have had for you. Clearly you do not respect Wikipedia, its members or it's guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt we will be hearing from BelchFire.

But honestly Still, those sources suck. The FRC is not even close to a good source for attributes that apply to the collective Christian right. And the APA site doesn't even mention the word Christian anywhere on the page.

Of course the claims are going to be controversial to anyone who identifies with the Christian right, and of course they're not going to want be associated with and negative characteristics. Let's do some real research. Anyone here should be able to get access to Credo, Highbeam and Questia, not to mention public libraries, university libraries, Google Scholar, Google Books, etc. It shouldn't be that hard to flesh this section out with solid, quality sources. In fact, there 13 full text books, and numerous journal, magazine and newspaper article with 'Christian right' in their title. – MrX 03:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, the FRC isn't used as a source; FOTF is. I know these organizations all look alike after a while, but still...

I don't see any negative characteristics. Rather, these characteristics would be seen as positive by conservatives, negative by liberals. In other words, they're factual. Now, if you want to improve the citations, I'm fine with that, but let's not pretend that Belchfire's claim was sound. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops - Yeah, I get them confused - they're all 'Fs' to me. I still believe the sourcing was inadequate, but the edit summary 'lol' was probably all it took for the editor to decide to revert it. Perhaps someday when I have more time and patience, I'll take stab at editing that section myself. – MrX 04:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How about right now? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thank you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

When your argument consists entirely of discussion about whether I've complied with an essay, the debate is pretty much over before it started. I've justified the edit already, and nobody who disagrees has offered anything more than a partisan opinion, yet the fact remains: FotF does not speak for the entire Christian Right. And the crap about Exodus is just ~~bullshit~~ retarded POV-pushing that doesn't belong in this article at all. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 05:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, not civil yet. Keep redacting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Not civil, but your (SS247) edits are still incompatible with Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, doesn't WP:CIVIL count as a Wikipedia policy? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Belchfire's edits are necessarily acceptable, but your edits are clearly not acceptable. (Incivility in response to extreme provocation is a violation of policy, but so is the provocation.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, and where's the provocation? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, I see no personal attacks here while I see you support others who do so. I recommend you refrain from further editing here as you clearly have an agenda and are pushing POV. A note to editors, please stop facilitating his behavior, make your formal complaints to AN and AN/I or request formal mediation. I support a community sanction to topic ban StillStanding and recommend this be addressed at the proper venue.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, ever since I pointed out on Black Kite's talk page that you had made some funny accusations about Viriditas on my own talk page, you seem to have nothing better to do than follow around my edits and leave hostile remarks like this one. Might I suggest that you focus your energies on something more productive? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Its probably that you lost all support from me by being dishonest. Funny? As in you two moving that RFC proposal from one user page to the other that even an admin sees as a possible attemtp to game the system. Again, I support an indef block of this editor or a topic ban as seen fit by the community.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback, why

[22] In case anyone wonders why, WP:COPYVIO from The Values Campaign?: The Christian Right And the 2004 Elections pp57-58 by MrX. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, but I'm not seeing copyright violation here. Could you please point out a particular phrase that you removed because it was found in that book? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think I just make shit up?[23][24] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is very bold claim. I await evidence to support reverting an entire sections. I also assume that you realize that individual words and phrases are not subject to copyright. I also assume that you are familiar with the doctrine of fair use. I await your explanation. – MrX 20:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Two copyvios lifted word for word from the source pointed out above was enough to revert you wholesale. Another copyvio on your part will result in a trip to ANI. Anyone can see the diffs and look at the source to see I am correct. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the problem here is that it's not an exact copy, although there are clear similarities.

"Many members of the Christian Right regarded the same-sex marriage issue as the defining battle in the culture wars--more important than other gay rights issues and even more immediately critical than abortion." - Green

"Many members of the Christian right view same-sex marriage as the defining issue in the culture wars, more so that other gay rights issues and even more urgently important than abortion." - MrX

I suggest that the correct answer here is to paraphrase less closely, as opposed to revert. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not even close to paraphrasing, it is copyright violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

DS was correct to rollback. MrX will undoubtably fix the problem now that he is aware there is one. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's definitely close paraphrasing as opposed to a word-for-word copy. Whether it's a WP:COPYVIO depends on how we cite it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I wrote:

Many members of the Christian right view same-sex marriage as the defining issue in the culture wars, more so that other gay rights issues and even more urgently important than abortion.

Original text:

Many members of the Christian Right regarded the same-sex marriage issue as the defining battle in the culture wars—more important than other gay rights issues and even more immediately critical than abortion.

Not a copyvio. There is set of five words that are the same: "Many members of the Christian right" Is this why you removed the five paragraphs that I wrote?

If there is a policy that I'm unaware of that is more restrictive than US Copyright law and the Berne Convention, then I would ask someone to link me to it. If I have paraphrased too closely, I can easily rewrite this section, however, I believe I am well within bounds on this. – MrX 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I took another look at WP:COPYVIO and it's not at clear that there's a problem. You are paraphrasing while giving due credit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

For more info on the topic see Wikipedia:Copy-paste#Can I copy and paste if I change the text a little bit?.Moxy (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are all aware of your mastery of policy. So considering that, let's see what concern DS actually has who appears to have a bit more experience with respect to WP:COPYVIO and its application. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to rewrite it, so there's no question. Then the naysayers can complain about how the "source doesn't say that" or "that's not in the source", and I then will take it to ANI. – MrX 21:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's probably the best way to handle this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I am certain you will give an accurate portrayal of the sources. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm certain I will also. – MrX 21:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And you certainly did. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Size of the Christian right: citation?

In the Terminology section, the article reads:

"About 15% of the electorate in the United States supports the Christian right."

But there is no source given for this estimate.

I wonder if someone knowledgeable on the subject can find several reliable and non-partisan sources, and replace the above unsourced sentence with these sources' estimates — giving the citations, of course.Daqu (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted unattributed claim

Over two months after I questioned the basis for the unattributed assertion "About 15% of the electorate in the United States supports the Christian right, " there has been no response from anyone. As a result I have deleted this claim.

Anyone who has a reliable source for this statistic (or whatever the correct one is), please feel free to reinstate this correctly.Daqu (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you actually deleted it; it's still in the article. FWIW, I did find this which suggests the figure is at least 25%. "USA: Christian Right’s Influence Shaken By U.S. Election...For decades, right-leaning white Christian evangelicals, currently at least 25 percent of the U.S. electorate, have been a significant and influential voting demographic." - Mr X 12:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Images

Herzen had three times added images to this article, I fail to see what any of these images, including the newest one added have to do with this article. So I should like him to explain how the new image has anything to do with this article before I remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely fail to see why you object to my adding images to the article. Wikipedia guidelines say that an article having images adds to the quality of the article. I started adding images representative of the Christian right in response to this edit, the summary of which was: "The image has nothing to do with the article. A picture of the alleged Christian Right at a protest would be appropriate." The first two images I added were rejected, the first because "the Westboro people are not typical", the second because "being anti-abortion does not automatically mean you are christian or on the right."

You say you do not see what the current image "ha[s] to do with the article." So I will spell it out for you. The section of the article I added the image to states "The contemporary Christian right ... has ... engaged in battles over pornography, obscenity, abortion, state sanctioned prayer in public schools, textbook contents (concerning creationism), homosexuality, and sexual education." The photo I added is of a truck with posters on it. One poster mentions the Ten Commandments, another quotes Romans, so the posters are clearly expressing a Christian point of view. Also, on the truck are written "Abortion is murder" and "Homosexuality is a sin." Finally, the truck has the URL TruthTruckUSA.com written on it. Although that Web site is currently inoperative, WHOIS reports that the Web site is registered to a Ron Brock. Googling that name brought up this page at the Operation Rescue web site. Since Operation Rescue is a Christian right organization par excellence, I don't see how anyone can deny that this image is a perfect complement to the content of the article. – Herzen (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I too wondered about these images, but if adding images to articles improves the article, who are we to deny Herzen any pleasure he may derive from doing so? A least this image is somewhat on topic. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what is written on the truck, and how does your link support the sddition? Where is your source which says this rescue truck or operation rescue is a part of the christian right? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Westboro image because it was too fringe. However, I think the Operation Rescue "Truth Truck" image is okay for this article. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the question of images has been raised, it occurred to me that the other two images, a photo of Jerry Falwell and a photo of Focus on the Family's Visitor's Welcome Center add nothing to the article, as far as I can tell. Falwell is fairly insignificant at this point, and the photo of the Focus on the Family's Visitor's Welcome Center is utterly boring.

Jerry Falwell has become so irrelevant that I didn't even realize that he was dead until I looked at the article about him. I propose we replace the picture of Falwell with one of Pat Robertson, who was a presidential candidate and still makes the news occasionally. Falwell was associated with the Moral Majority, but that was dissolved in the 1980s. The Christian right in general, in contrast is still going strong. Having a photo of Falwell in the article makes the article look like something from an out of print high school history textbook. – Herzen (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Other candidates for serving as the "face" of the Christian right in this article are Mike Huckabee and Pope John Paul II. I think Falwell is inappropriate, simply because the organization he founded is defunct. – Herzen (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the pope has anything to do with it. The pope has nothing to do with playing politics in the US. Huckabee would be a good choice, however. Naapple (Talk) 03:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II was a pretty outspoken conservative on most social issues, as well as a vocal anti-Communist. Many conservatives view him, along with Reagan and Thatcher, as a major player in the fall of the USSR and communism. I wouldn't add him because he was apolitical in terms of party and official ideology, but it is not absurd to consider him. Toa Nidhiki05 03:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Christian right, as I understand it, is an alliance between conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics. Up until evangelicals came out against abortion a few years after Roe v. Wade, evangelicals tended to distance themselves from Catholics. John Paul began the rightward shift of the Catholic church, and the alliance between conservatives evangelicals and Catholics got going strong after he became pope. So he is definitely a significant figure in the emergence of the Christian right. Still, I can see that including his picture would probably be confusing to most readers.

I see Pat Robertson as significantly more prominent that Mike Huckabee. How do others feel about replacing Jerry Falwell's photo with Pat Robertson's? I believe that that would make this article more "contemporary". Also, the same picture of Falwell is used in the article on the Moral Majority. — Herzen (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Robertson is more a media figure and isn't terribly involved in politics. I think there's an important distinction between "Christian" and the "Christian Right". Robertson is the former. He supports some drug legalization and advocates causes for global warming, putting him way out of line with the Christian right. Huckabee completely entails the Christian right; being a socially conservative former governor of a southern state. Politics is the key point in the Christian Right, and Huckabee fits that mold. I also would guess that Huckabee gets more views than The 700 Club Naapple (Talk) 20:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, above you said that "Huckabee would be a good choice". (I guess I was misinformed about Robertson.) Does that mean that you are in favor of replacing Falwell's picture with Huckabee's? I would go along with that. Are other people in favor of it? (I don't really feel strongly about this; as I've said before, I just think that using Falwell's picture makes the article look "dated".) – Herzen (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea I think it'd be good. I'm not overtly opposed to Robertson, I just think he's a poorer choice compared to Huckabee. That said I'm not committed either way. Naapple (Talk) 01:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of the Word "Conservative."

It's probably a bit too late, or perhaps corruption of the language is just one more thing that's going wrong as always, but there is nothing "conservative" about the Christian Right.

The touchy-feely non-violent ones are reactionary; the less nice ones are fascist.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no context?

This article talks around the subject but where is the context. For instance how many Christians are classed as right wing? I now know what a right-wing Christian is, but this should be supported by the demographics. How many right wing Christians are fundamentalist, or how many are "conservative"? This article - as would be expected from a bunch of amateurs - lacks scope and understanding. It's just a lot of copy/paste plagiarised facts.

How does this movement juxtapose itself against the spectrum of other Christian groups? I don't know. This article doesn't tell me anything except about what a right-wing Christian is and where we are at now.81.129.205.237 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Bias in the page

This is probably the most biased page I've ever read on Wikipedia. The latest "history" of the Christian Right Conservatives is something a private university did 40 years ago. And does anyone actually believe that religious conservatism started at that point because that single person said that? It just seems to be a smear to me. What is next including a section exclusively to WestBoro Baptist Church? Why not include something that is actually relevant to the Christian Right such as the hundreds and thousands of people who join the abortion march on DC primarily for religious reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.146.122 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I held my independent tongue as long as I could, but on reading the sentence "Communism is sometimes seen as a threat to the Western Christian tradition.", I lost it. "...sometimes seen..."? Is there anyone on the face of the earth that does not understand Marx, or derivations of his philosophy such as Marxist-Leninist etc, as not only being atheist, but explicitly anti-religious? If there are, they need to go back and start at the beginning. The bias of the page is quite obvious throughout and, while containing many accurate facts, needs a thorough scrubbing by a neutral editor. 76.88.1.215 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you ever heard of liberation theology? It is not that common in the United States, but is quite popular elsewhere in the world. It incorporates what could be considered Marxist elements. There also is such a thing as Christian communism. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything to undermine the notion that Communism is indeed seen as a threat to Western Christian tradition. The two you mentioned are new movements generally seen as antagonistic toward traditional Christianity.--TMD Talk Page. 22:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

lead section - US and other countries

WP:LEAD says that the lead section should summarize the article contents - the US ideology is most well known/studied/discussed in the US context, but the term is applicable to other countries - and US groups fund political organizations around the world (Uganda's anti-gay laws have been argued to be influenced).

I think the lead section should describe how the term is used outside the US. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS and abstinence promotion groups

WP:MEDRS gives guidelines for evaluating the quality of medical studies, and the criteria for inclusion of medical information on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does not need to give false balance to groups that have poorly designed papers self-published by partisan think-tanks, especially if they use poor statistical methodology. In these instances, a meta-analysis evaluates the different methodologies used by different studies to evaluate the quality of each study.

This has been discussed on Talk:Abstinence-only sex education and Talk:Sex education.

-- Aronzak (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly useful:

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Abstinence-only sex education.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles or to systematic reviews
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.

Since this article is about a political movement not medicine there is no need to use medical sources. Have faith that the social scientists who write about the Christian right have the ability to read the conclusions in scientific papers and apply them to the practices of the Christian right and that is not something we should do ourselves per synthesis. Furthermore the "poorly designed papers self-published" is a red herring. There is no justification in reliable sources for including them. Most readers are not interested in scientific debates, and if they are they can follow the internal links. TFD (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has a sentence relating to abstinence-only sex education having worse outcomes than comprehensive sex education - this is appropriate for the article, because the ideology goes against Evidence-based policy - that's what the news refs argue. A POV pusher is trying to add in a sentence giving false balance to studies produced by partisan think tanks, and asserting that they have equal validity - they don't, and MEDRS means they clearly aren't worthy of inclusion. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The material that adds false balance is clearly wrong and should be deleted. Part of the reason they should not be in this article is that they do not mention the Christian right. Neither do the MEDRS sources. I do not mind mentioning that abstinence education is unaccepted, provided sources on the Christian right mention it. TFD (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the Heritage Foundation is a good secondary source. Other sources: http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/sexuality-issues/abstinence-education

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=382798

http://instituteresearch.com/abstinence.php?menu=m2 Jimjilin (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

We should use systematic reviews such as [25][26] . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jimjilin:

The Heritage Foundation is a partisan body. The GAO in 2008 published "ABSTINENCE EDUCATION Assessing the Accuracy and Effectiveness of Federally Funded Programs" that evaluated HHS funding for abstinence-only programs - particularly, real world faith based abstinence programs that do not include "medically accurate information about condom effectiveness" which the "Public Health Service Act" was changed to require.

This page doesn't require extensive coverage of medical issues to do with the efficacy of programs in general - more the political policies supporting or opposing particular issues - in the US the particular political issue around 2008 is medical accuracy of condom information - the GAO has discussed this, "HHS’ grantees are required to include information on condom effectiveness, and that information must be medically accurate"

One American Bar Association article states "Much of this conflict can trace its roots to the beginning of the modern era of sex education, which began, roughly, around the time that the HIV/AIDS epidemic entered the national spotlight in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Almost as quickly as there were curricula teaching that condoms were extremely effective in combating the spread of HIV, other curricula were introduced that denigrated condoms’ effectiveness, comparing using a condom to playing Russian roulette and blaming “victims” of HIV/AIDS for their own complicity in contracting what was then viewed by many as a primarily homosexual disease."

Note that comprehensive sex education includes promotion of students delaying sex or "ABC (Abstinence/Be Faithful/Use Condom)" - the difference is coverage of condom efficacy. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The American College of Pediatricians is not a major or well repected medical organization. The major peads group in the US is the American Academy of Pediatrics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin (talk · contribs), there is no valid reason to remove this. This type of editing from Jimjilin is not new. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes have warned the user in question and we can take this to 3RR if they continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If you accepted that sources that are not about the Christian right should not be in articles about the Christian right, then you could avoid the side issue about using Jimjilin's sources. TFD (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Anti-abortion photo

Photos should match the text. The people in the photo make no reference to Christianity at all, much less the Christian right. Maybe everything is all the same to some of our editors, but maybe some of you will agree with me that we should be careful not to paint a blurry picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.158.62 (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Christian right. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Censorship of freedom of speech regarding a few issues

Pornography

As pornography is a freedom of speech issue, it should be noted that the religious right is deliberately in favoring censorship of freedom of speech, regarding this issue.

Other religions distributing materials

It should also be pointed out that, whereas the religious right feels entitled to pass out Christian literature to children in public schools, they vehemently do everything to censor the sharing of religious literature being passed out to children at those same exact schools (their reaction to the Satanist church passing out Satanist pamphlets right after a church passed out Bibles could be one example/their reaction to atheists passing out atheist books after a similar occurrence could be another example).

Public monuments

Whereas the religious right feels entitled to construct Christian symbols everywhere they can get away with it on public property, it should be noted that they also fight against any other religious monument being constructed alongside symbolic Christian monuments on public property. An ill-perceived concept of "Christian exceptionalism" exists, which they feel grants them the right to exercise their freedom of speech in public in this manner, but others may not (the 9/11 cross monument could be used as an example, as they were in favor of only constructing a cross/the Baphomet statue next to the 10 commandments structure could be another example).

Other religious buildings

Whereas it's "perfectly fine" to build churches anywhere (in their eyes), it's apparently not okay for other religions to do the same (the building of the mosque near-ish ground zero after 9/11 could be used as an example).

More suggestions?

I know they do it all the time. Any other suggestions on how they censor free speech could go below here. I'm tired, and don't feel like doing the research for all these right now. These are just some ideas on how they censor free speech. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 09:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Christian right economics

Should it be mentioned that some American politicians associated with the Christian right do not favor laissez faire economics, but are Christian democrats instead, who support a social market economy; including Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum? 108.13.114.31 (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You would need sources to support that conclusion. From what I have read of their economic positions, they are closer to pure laissez-faire than the establishment Republicans. TFD (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christian right. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150512182418/http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?c=WASH_BRIEFING to http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?c=WASH_BRIEFING

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please move archives

There are some talk page archives that didn't get moved with the page. -- Gestrid (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the time to do it myself. The {{Archive box}} should be working again. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

scientific consensus on evolution is relevant and factual

An edit made by 19lizacook on 17:05, 14 July 2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_right&type=revision&diff=729801117&oldid=728923112) was made with the comment, "This is an editorial Opinion not fact." The edit consisted of removing the sentences:

The overwhelming majority of scientific research, both in the United States and elsewhere, has concluded that the theory of evolution, using the technical definition of the word theory, is the only explanation of the development of life, and an overwhelming majority of biologists strongly support its presentation in public school science classes.^[1] Outside the United States, as well as among American Catholics and Mainline Protestants, Christian conservatives have generally come to accept the theory of evolution.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

These are clearly facts and not "opinions." If there are other reasons for removing these sentences, we can entertain them, but 19lizacook's given explanation doesn't stand up, and I can see no other compelling case. It is a fact that the views of the Christian Right on evolution contradict the scientific consensus, and this contradiction is noteworthy and relevant. I have reverted this edit and returned the sentences to the article. Flies 1 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian right. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian right. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212223001/http://www.tcpc.org/library/article.cfm?library_id=152 to http://www.tcpc.org/library/article.cfm?library_id=152

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Christian right. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What about the non-Christian Religious Right

What about the Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim Right? Fethullah Gülen is a Leader of the Muslim Right.--SBC Guy (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

See Religious right disambiguation page, which contains links to Jewish right and Hindu nationalism, among others. Kinkyturnip (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Npov issues with dominionisn lable section

The main problem with this section is some critics are mentioned but with no description of they are. Any name of a critic that doesn't state who they are needs to be fixed. If they have a specific political/religious lable associated with them then that should be included, such a conservative, Evangelical, progressive, etc. Don't imply that many non-conservative or non-evangelical critics disagree with the lable unless that is truly supported by sources. 108.239.8.149 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There are about 40 sources for the section. If we were to label any conceived political associations to those sources, we would then likely have to source those associations as well, and if they were political sources, they would be bad ones. Typically Wikipedia tries to use sources that are not associated with any political affiliation. Beach drifter (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, if we’re going to label critics we would need to label supporters. Hedges is, for example, a socialist anarchist. But we don’t normally add labels like this. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

General misgivings about the approach

I don't live in the USA. Occasionally, others have deplored to me what they have called the Christian Right, often accusing me of belonging to it, even though I have never voted Conservative in my life. I stumbled across the entry for the Christian Right today as result of just such a conversation.

I had often heard the term Christian Right used as an insult, almost invariably by Americans, but never heard the term used by anybody who proudly claimed to be part of the Christian Right, whatever it was. I had concluded that the Christian Right wasn't a precisely defined thing that existed at all, so much as a vague, abstract, shorthand term, used by those trying to model a big picture, with decidedly fuzzy boundaries, part of the vocabulary and (to raise an NPOV issue) the rhetoric of those opposed to what they thought of, and referred to as the Christian Right, as a sort of conspiracy theory that operated clandestinely, without having an office, an address, or a membership list, or a bank account, or leaders.

The opening sentence of the present Wikipedia entry said, "The Christian right or the religious right are [sic] Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives seek to influence politics and public policy with their interpretation of the teachings of Christianity." This more-or-less confirmed my suspicions set out above. Moreover, the sole reference supporting this opening sentence was described on the page linked to as "a theoretically balanced, mainstream, comprehensive text characterized by its emphasis on diversity", in the context meaning a textbook of sociology. This citation supports my understanding of what those who use the term Christian Right actually mean by the term, rather than the writer of this entry's own explanation of what a real-life, actual thing with that name is, as a set of factions or (in the next paragraph) a "coalition" or a "movement", and so-on.

Having got off to such a bad start, I wasn't surprised that the article never became what I'd hope it might, worthy of being in an encyclopedia, but continued to confirm my suspicions that Christian Right was an insulting term some people used about other people, not well defined, who never used that term about themselves.

I admire the writer for the work he put into writing this Wikipedia entry, but not his judgment in thinking that Christian Right was a term that anybody ought to want to look up in an encyclopedia, to become more knowledgable rather than more confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Allman (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The Christian right's support of racism and segregation in the 1960s.

I thought I should discuss this here.

Over a year ago, User:1990'sguy brazenly removed a whole section of the well-sourced history of the Christian right's prior support of racism and segregation, of their opposition to civil rights in the 1960s, and of quotes by white conservative Christians leaders and institutions arguing that desegregation was unbiblical by influential Christian Right bigwigs like Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, Jr., etc.

This article is about the Christian right, and the history of the movement's opposition to racial equality has been documented in numerous reputable sources, from the New York Times to The Atlantic to admissions by several prominent white conservative Christians themselves, including Ralph Reed and the Southern Baptists. Bob Jones University, a bastion of Christian conservatism, apologized to black Christians and all blacks in general for their policies of racism.

See the following:

"The Christian Right Confesses Sins of Racism" - The New York Times, 1996

"The Real Origins of the Religious Right" - Politico, 2014

"Is Christian Coalition's Conversion Real?" - Los Angeles Times, 1997

"Christian Coalition Offers Blacks Repentance, Funds" - Los Angeles Times, 1996

These are all reliable sources, and the view that white religious conservatives were staunch supporters of segregation and opponents of minority rights is clearly not a WP:FRINGE point of view, but mainstream among historians who have studied it. Why else would white evangelicals try and make amends with blacks if racism was not a serious problem in their movement and churches?

Thoughts? I guess an argument could be made that the material should be condensed, but removing it altogether is bad when it warrants inclusion due to its mention in mainstream sources. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Abortion

I removed a statement that the Christian right believes that "abortion is murder", because the definition of “murder”, according to the OED, is, “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another“. Following this definition, something has to be illegal in order to be considered murder, and abortion, being legal, would therefore not be murder. That may change in the future, but it can’t be said now.24.228.135.248 (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a false conclusion. As you may know, Christians are subject to more laws than mere civil ordinances and codes. Since killing a fetus is against God's law, it is indeed considered murder by pro-life Christians. Anyway, a belief does not need to match up to your dictionary definitions in order to be a strongly-held and sincere belief. Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand it now. Sorry for creating any confusion.24.228.135.248 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference number system in this article is broken

Something is wrong with the reference numbers. There are 195 reference numbers used in the article ([1] through [195]), but only 76 show up in the "References" section. Many of the links don't work: you click on them and nothing happens, instead of bumping you down to the relevant citation. I recommend someone look into this and fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.51.57 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I fiddled with it for a while, but whatever I did seemed to make it worse. The refs are there in preview mode, but not when saved. It's supposedly because of a missing }} but I can't isolate it anywhere. Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your tip (and the new breakage) gave me enough clues to narrow down the problem and fix it. It was a started "hidden comment" without ending the hidden comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.51.57 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Some "bot" reverted my code fixes because it didn't like the citations. Now that problem I surely don't know how to fix. Anyway, for whoever tries to fix the breakages, just remove the "<!--" from the citation code. 67.131.51.57 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Headline: Environment

Under the main headline View there is a paragraph titled Environment, which states: According to some social science research, Christians and members of the Christian right are typically less concerned about issues of environmental responsibility than the general public.[109][110].

Link to source numbered 109 directs you to the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion's Wikipedia page and does not verify any of the above statements.

Link to source numbered 110 is a dead link. Upon searching the link on Google the study claims: "Those not affiliated with organized religion were most environmentally oriented, Christians fell in the middle." The general public in America is religious. So this study really has nothing to do with the claims made in the statement. The study is also based on a small sample size and mostly proves that age group is the most significant factor when determining these beliefs.

I believe the entire paragraph should be deleted or at the very least be rewritten and properly sourced. WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WhowinsIwins, I'm not going to comment on whether the sources support the content sufficiently or not, but I've fixed it so that both references link directly to the sources (or, at least, to a page where one can pay to get access to them). Best, Wham2001 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's good that you noticed this WhowinsIwins. I'll remove the section for now unless citations can be found that back up these problematic sentences. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

^ "Project Steve". Ncse.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
^ [27]
^ Chris Irvine (February 11, 2009). "The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity". Telegraph.co.uk.
^ "Good religion needs good science by the Revd Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs".
^ Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent (September 13, 2008). "Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution". Telegraph.co.uk.
^ "Christianity in Evolution".

[oldfield-1] The Right and the Righteous: The Christian Right Confronts the Republican Party by Duane Murray Oldfield

[williams-2] Cite error: The named reference williams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] "Project Steve". Ncse.com. Retrieved December 26, 2011.

[4] [27]

[5] Chris Irvine (February 11, 2009). "The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity". Telegraph.co.uk.

[6] "Good religion needs good science by the Revd Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs".

[7] Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent (September 13, 2008). "Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution". Telegraph.co.uk.

[8] "Christianity in Evolution".

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]