Talk:Christian right

Christianity: Charismatic Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 Up to March 2007 Up to March 2008

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

---

???

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

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

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

I have no problem with its removal. I always felt its relevance to the section, as it is currently worded, was marginal. You can find the rationale for its original inclusion at #Whitewashing and weasel words. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Except for the fact that, if it weren't for the caption, this could be any building anywhere. The picture thus has ZERO informational value. It is just a picture for the sake of having a picture. Focus on the Family is only very briefly mentioned in passing. You might as well include a picture of a house that Pat Robertson once lived in 20 years ago for all the relevance it would have to an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, and you aren't judging images based upon WP:IMAGES. In the end, it's not *anywhere* it's in Colorado Springs, at a high-profile religious organizations Visitor's Center, and it has their name emblazoned in brass on the wall. We don't only include images that, should they not have a caption, people could not mistake them for anything else. How many geological formations would be shunted if *that* were the guidelines? I've well-explained the relevance. Is this really worth an RFC for you, because having an article go unillustrated certainly is worth it for me. If you have better photos, put them up. But the guideline is that images should illustrate the text, and I've already given three reasons why it does so - you are using your own guideline, and a perplexing one at that; I don't think it's a winning argument. --David Shankbone 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only word that is discernible on the picture is "family", otherwise it is a completely anonymous building (i.e. "any building anywhere"). The picture tells you absolutely nothing about the Christian right, let alone about its history (come to think of it the aforementioned "picture of a house that Pat Robertson once lived in 20 years ago" would actually be more relevant as, unlike this obviously modern building, it would at least be vaguely historical). A group pic of CR leaders from the late 70s would be far more relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, we will open this up to an RFC, then. By the way, adding italics and bolds only makes your arguments seem weak because we are all right here, there is no need to shout or highlight - we can all read just fine. --David Shankbone 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a geological formation, the informational value is 'this is what this geological formation we mention in the article looks like'. I don't remember seeing the Welcome Center mentioned anywhere in the article. I have substituted a picture of Jerry Falwell, who (unlike the FotF Welcome Center) actually does play a prominent role in 'the history of the Christian right' (the subject of the section). If we ever decide to include a section on 'Christian right architecture', we'll be sure to consider your photo. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, for geological formations, if they aren't found on the page for, say, Garden of the Gods or Grand Canyon you would not know they are located in those places. Whereas illustrating a headquarters is more than appropriate and often done on many, many articles. I'm not sure why this bothers you so much. It's politically neutral, and adds graphic illustration to the page. Anyway, please stop edit-warring over it and discuss it civilized here. Thanks. --David Shankbone 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Illustrating a headquarters" may be appropriate for an organisation, but it is far less relevant for a movement, such as the CR, whose organisations rise, relocate, rename and/or fall with considerable regularity, and seldom outlive their charismatic founders. You may notice that the section you have now shoehorned your pic into mentions Dobson four times, but FotF only once. This is because he is the primary actor, and FotF merely his vehicle (and the Welcome Center merely the 'paintwork' on this vehicle). A movement is about people and ideas, not about buildings. This picture of Dobson:Image:James Dobson 1.jpg would be a better illustration for this section (or if you want variety from leadership portraits, this logo:Image:Focus on the Family logo.png . Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your first argument I don't find meritorious because this is a Wiki - nothing is enshrined, and if they should relocated from their expansive, four building campus then we can remove the photograph. Second, you are right--they are about movements, and Focus on the Family is part of that movement. And since the title of the section is national organizations your own line of reasoning that "'Illustrating a headquarters' may be appropriate for an organisation". Additionally, if the founder and the large organization they founded can't be separated, then the photograph of that organization's most visible building is fine. Indeed, it is a better illustration because it shows that the fruits of the person's labor is larger than the one person. Also, please refrain from using phrases like "shoehorn" because it does not assumed good faith. There is absolutely no need for you take on an adversarial role here - we are talking about a photograph of a building, for heaven's sake. Regardless, populating the article with only photos of prominent people does not serve either the movements they are part of/started, nor the article, justice. --David Shankbone 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unident> Buildings iconically represent stable institutions -- the White House, the Houses of Congress, Westminster, St Peter's Basilica, etc -- the very antithesis of a fluid political movement. I didn't state that "the founder and the large organization they founded can't be separated" -- I stated that the organisation is merely a vehicle for the founder. This means that the organisation can reasonably be represented by the founder, but not vice versa. All that FotF is, is Dobson, but all Dobson is, is not FotF. And you are not illustrating "an organization" but a multitude of organisations, none of whom (including FotF) will be associated in readers' (or even shcolars on the subjects') minds with buildings. As for "shoehorning" -- I would say that the shoe fits. Rather than looking for images to illustrate this article, you appear more interested in finding somewhere in this article to put one of your own images. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't capable of discerning my motives, so please do not or you are in violation of the policy WP:AGF - also known as "comment on the edits, not the editors." Additionally, for you to say FOTF, and its vast, vast international organization that includes publishing (amongst other businesses), will not outlive its founder is your own POV, qualifies as WP:OR and also runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. These aren't arguments, but your personal thoughts and observations, many of which violate core policies. I'm asking you for a third time, please stop. --David Shankbone 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:CRYSTAL needed -- of the "organisations" (note the plural) that this section is describing (which is what any image is meant to illustrate, not FotF alone), the Moral Majority has already closed shop, and Christian Coalition of America is a mere shadow of its former self. As to the "vast, vast international organization", I'd be skeptical as to how many involve subsidiaries that have achieved any political significance in their host countries (but that is tangential really). I did not say that FotF won't outlive Dobson, merely that our experience with CR organisations generally (which is, rather than FotF specifically, the subject of this section) to date is that generally they don't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine to say that, but what may apply to one does not necessarily apply to another. And using one--and arguably the largest and most prominent--of the "organizations" is certainly adequate for illustration. Afterall, you had no problem using Jerry Falwell, when was only one of the movement's leaders. Your arguments lack consistency, and are more aimed at removal of this particular photo, with little cause. --David Shankbone 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think the fact that Bob Jones university waited until 2000 to allow interracial marriage and dating among its members is indication enough of where the Religious Right was on the race issue.

The Religious Right is, in a very real sense, the heir to the segregationist movement. Same base (white, rural southern Protestants). Same people (Jerry Falwell, the patron saint of the fundamentalists, started out life as a white supremacist preacher, while George Wallace, the patron saint of segregationism, was "born again" after leaving politics and found refuge in the Religious Right). Same rhetoric (God is a capitalist, women belong in the kitchen, anti-government ideology, "values" baloney). And intrestingly enough, same prejudices. Against Catholics, immigrants, liberals, homosexuals... and communism, though it has been slowly eased out in favor of Islam as the number one servant of Satan. The only thing that changed is that they officially dropped racism from their platform (meaning, anti-black and anti-Jewish sentiment). And even then, racism isn't gone from their ideology so much as buried beneath the surface or repackaged in "respectable" terms.

Granted that's not as true anymore. Racism is beginning to fade, even in the Deep South, and so in a sense the fundamentalists' "new" rhetoric is rubbing off on them. But even then it's the same logic, the same insecure need to feel superior to *someone*. Since it's become impossible to feel superior for racial reasons, they switched to religious ones, dropping the "W" in "WASP" in favor of the "P". Ideology is usually just an excuse for behavior, not a reason for it... and as long as someone's stroking the South's massive superiority complex, it doesn't matter if they're doing it through religion or race. 217.52.14.101 (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The statement is sourced and relevant, so should not be removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is relevant as well. What I was suggesting is that we break up the second paragraph and move each tidbit to their proper place in the previous discussion (see my explanation above). And then we elaborate the first sentence to become the body of that paragraph. The section I believe would then be more relevantly titled: "Opposing Viewpoints" as we will have demonstrated the contrasting viewpoints that are within the movement throughout the article.SFTass (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I received no objections, I went ahead and separated the section. The first part of the section is now covered by the generational issues so I saw no problem removing the section in its entirety. I hope that if anyone has detailed and sourced information about issues within the movement that they will add it to that topic's part within the Moral Issues and General Beliefs section.SFTass (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Timeline:

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

I find that highly unlikely (and like everything else you have written completely unsubstantiated). Can you present any evidence to back this claim? My experience has been that the Christian right has no interest in "religious freedom" beyond their 'freedom' to impose their own religion on others. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was rewritting the section like the plate said needed. If you disagreed with the revision you should tell me which parts and why, and not erase the whole thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was wholly unsourced and most probably WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Per WP:DUE, opinions should be given weight according to their prominence. According to the article on Christian Zionism, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, and Pat Robertson are proponents (as are Tom DeLay and Alan Keyes). This would make it a prominent viewpoint among the CR. Can you suggest any competing viewpoints with prominent proponents? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I find this section to be out of place and unnecessary. I wanted to know the reasons why it ought to be included, and if any one else thinks it should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldial (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is ironic that you misplace this complaint at the top of the talkpage. I would think that its increasing generational disconnect with younger generations would be a fairly important issue confronting the CR. It is well-sourced. So I don't see what the problem is -- and will therefore object strenuously to any attempt to remove it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't bite. --Gimme danger (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way this section was created it was neither (1) where it would be expected to be (the bottom of the page) nor did it have an auto-edit-summary indicating its section-title -- thus the only way to find it, was to look at the page's history. This tends to make people irritable and 'snappy'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyIt is oddly placed. The material should probably go into the history section. Otherwise it's just a dangling section that looks like an afterthought. Like Hrafn, I think that current conflicts within the CR and relations with the world at large are necessary for complete coverage. If anything, the section ought to be expanded or balanced. I don't see the purpose of one big blockquote.--Gimme danger (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not part of the movement's "history" -- it is an issue connected with its present & future. It's current placement, at the very end of the article, is thus probably the best place for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think that what Ldial may be implying, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, is that, since the rest of the article is divided into very broad sections with more specific subsections, that it throws the article off balance to have a very short and specific section appended to the end. As it is now, the History section is somewhat anemic, but with more content, I think that this data will fit in well with some sort of "Recent Events" subsection.

I could also see expanding the "Current Trends" section to balance the article, but I don't know what else you could put in there. Perhaps the trend toward more explicitly humanitarian issues, a la Rick Warren, could be part of that, but I don't know if that movement is within the purview of the Christian Right as a proper noun. --Gimme danger (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section originated in an orphan paragraph in another section that I recently found a buttressing reference for. The CR is going through a period of transition. Its current demographic is aging and thus shrinking, and it is facing stiff competition from the likes of the Emerging church movement for younger generations. Whether, and how, it maintains its relevance to the next generation is a critical issue for the movement -- and an issue that has been facing all Christian denominations (and many individual churches) in the recent past. For this reason I do not think it is appropriate to have it in the 'History' section (even as a 'recent trends' subsection). I agree however that it needs to be expanded to encompass the CR's response to these demographic realities.

Alright, that sounds reasonable to me. I know that a lot has been written recently about the changes in the CR, so the references should be relatively easy to find. I'm bogged down in Tibet and related articles, but once that settles down (never?) I can put some more energy into this article. Gimme danger (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The various versions of this passage have had two problems:

1. They have repeatedly overstated what the teens in question were agreeing to.
2. Adducing general "support" from very narrow and equivocal agreement on a single issue, is such outrageous WP:SYNTH that it borders on outright fabrication. Setting the bar this low, you could find evidence that just about anybody supported the CR.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. This single and very narrow "example", is grossly insufficient to substantiate the sweeping generalisation of "growing support for the Chrisian Right"
2. The teen survey is subtitled: "Least likely to support spoken prayer that mentions Jesus Christ" Are you really claiming that the CR favours prayers that "does not mention any specific religion" over ones that "mentions Jesus Christ"? That doesn't match what I've seen of the CR.

What you need is decade-on-decade statistics of age-groups' participation in conservative Christianity -- particularly after they leave home, so that their participation measures their own preferences, not their parents'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think the issue here is that English-speaking countries:

1. are more permeable to US Chrstian Right influences, so the relationship of their movements to the US's are more readily apparent; and
2. have information on them that is more readily accessible to English-speaking editors.

If you want to add (reliably sourced, etc) content on the Christian Right in non-English-speaking countries, then you are welcome to do so (please take note of WP:V#Non-English sources in the process however). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's because "Christian Right" refers above all to a fundamentalist movement found in the United States. Conservative Christians exist all over the world, but most of them do not agree with many of the tenets of the movement we are now discussing. Either the conservative-Protestant exclusivism of the movement, or its intertwinement with American exceptionalism and nationalism, or its wedding to capitalism and Prosperity Theology, make it very unattractive to most foreigners whether they're Christian or not, conservative or not.

There are conservative Christians in the Philippines (quite a lot, in fact), but the fact that they're Catholic makes them radically different from the fundamentalists in the U.S. (tolerance of other religions and willingness to take the Bible as an allegory are two things that are antithetical to the fundies). There are conservative Christians in Latin America, but since abortion and gay marriage are still largely illegal down there, social justice is instead the main focus of their politics; this has often led them to support social democratic reforms that the fundies also abhor. There are conservative Christians in the Middle-East, but the fundies' support for an Israeli policy that murders them by the truckload again is an irreconciliable gulf between them and the group we're calling "Christian Right".

"the Christian Right movement has a much broader distribution than that"

True. When we're calling something the "Christian Right", we usually refer to a movement that is very specific to conservatism, Protestantism and America. I'd support changing this to "Christian Right in America", but even that wouldn't be satisfactory since what we call the "Christian Right" is more restrictive than even that, usually excluding Catholics, Jews, Mormons and others even as they take their support on the hot button issues of abortion and gay marriage. "Fundamentalism" is as close as I can get for definitions... if you find something better, let me know. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]