Talk:Christian right/Archive 2

message: OK, I went ahead and cleaned up the Introduction and Issues list, and I think they are now both true and non-inflammatory. However, I also mentioned that the term is generally only used as an epithet by opponents of the "Christian Right", and now that I think more about it, it seems to me that this article should mainly be about the term and its use, and not about any supposed policies of such an entity.
After all, there is no single group that calls itself "The Christian Right", so I am wary of phrases such as these: 
:"Some critics claim that the Christian Right makes generic dominionist "impulse" statements"
"The Christian Right" does not make statements any more than "The Jews" or "The Loony Left" make statements. Any claims made by individuals should be placed in the article about that person, or the group to which they belong. This term is way too general to put specific claims into its mouth.
I also think the 'members' list should name just a handful of especially prominent members, but even that is kind of shaky IMHO. Comments? User:Jmstylr (sig added by Sam Spade  06:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. i do think a list is handy tho, if only so we know who the critics are refering to w the term. I look forward to more contributions from you on this subject. Cheers, Sam Spade  06:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pondering whether this article can ever be NPOV as it stands 

message: Some critics claim that the Christian Right's political agendas are a form of Dominionism, and have been influenced by intellectual challenges posed by Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism; the latter two are related philosophies that advocate a dissolution of democracy and personal freedoms and a push toward a theocratic or theonomic form of government that regards the Bible as the only valid reference for civics, government, scientific theory or any scholarly pursuit. Opposition groups with this point of view include the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
For example, Chip Berlet, in an American Civil Liberties Union website interview, said in 1996 that, "Reconstructionism is a theology that argues that only Christian men should rule civil society. It has a softer related theology called dominionism. ... Dominionism in general threatens the Church/State separation so vital to our democracy as a pluralist society. Groups such as the Christian Coalition really have adopted many of the tenets of Dominionism, and some key Christian right leaders are close to Reconstructionism, which thinks that the U.S. Constitution is a sub-document overruled by Old Testament Biblical Laws."
:Who, besides User:Cberlet, suggests these things? Sam Spade  13:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not post that on this page.  Someone else did.  A number of groups and individuals have made similar claims. Read the discussion here for details. There just was a national conference on the subject in NYC. See: this page.  --Cberlet 14:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

text: OK. Sam Spade  14:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is this? 

message: The page is losing NPOV and drifting toward an attack on the Christian right. For example the grouping of nut cases like Fred Phelps (and others) in the list of involved people is a propaganda device. I restored a bit of balance, as I once did before. It should not be deleted. Pollinator 20:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree the paragraph should not be deleted, but some recent edits have been way too POV in bashing critics of the Christian Right. More cited material is needed. --Cberlet 20:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drifting toward a propaganda tool 

message: I am sure a quick google search will produce substantial information that is critical of the Christian right movement and its methods.  I repeat, why is this article squeeky clean when it comes to existence of any information critical of the movement?  This article currently reads like a hagiography. zen master    T  21:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Christian_right#Dominionism. Sam Spade  21:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an infinitesimally tiny part of the criticism and controversy issue surrounding the christian right.  It almost seems as if the Christian right designed that section themselves.  May I add other factually citable sections on how others perceive and criticize the movement and its tactics? zen master    T  21:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no criticisms/controversy sub section? 

message: I provide cites, SamSpade provides original research, unresearched opinions, and uncited claims. Pick a paragraph, provde a cite, and lets have a real discussion. Or shall we go directly to mediation?--Cberlet 21:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You provide bias, assuming the Christian right is an objective group, and I provide NPOV, that it is a subjective label. And the problem is? Sam Spade  21:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't evade the issue.  What cites do you have to back up you opinions? William Martin is the biographer of Billy Graham and a centrist historian with an impressive reputation.  What problem do you have with his statement that there is a Christian Right? Your claims are without foundation. I cite my sentences.  How about you? --Cberlet 21:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet is correct here. Sam Spade's attempt at rewriting the article was filled with errors of fact, grammar, and logic and largely whitewashed over the issues. ZM's point is relevant as well, there are an abundance of critics and criticisms in found society that are not present in the article. This needs to be addressed. FeloniousMonk 21:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There you have it, all neutral sources agree, Sam is biased against smearing christians. Sam Spade  22:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Well thats insightful. Sam Spade  22:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Goof grief, Zen-Master, let me guess--SamSpade and I are part of a vast conspiracy?--Cberlet 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Apparently the objective of which being the prevention of criticism of the christian right, which, BTW, I am ok w! Criticize the chistian right all you want, but don't claim its a real, objective group in the narrative! Cite all you want, its no more neutral to say the Christian right is an actual movement (in the narrative) than it is for me to say that politically correctness is a real movement (in the narrative). We both know they are, but the article must remain NPOV. Do you see my point, Cberlet? Sam Spade  22:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the 551,000 Google results for "christian right"  you'll find many Christian groups that self-identify as part of the 'Christian right' movement. FeloniousMonk 22:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Next step is mediation

message: "Historically, conservative Christians were influential in the abolitionism movement to end slavery, the advocation of civil rights, and prohibition."
:Perhaps I'm dating myself, but I distinctly remember Southern conservative Protestant Christians, organized white Southern Baptists specifically, playing a significant role in the 1960's opposing civil rights,  public school integration, and busing. Considering this, this phrase as quoted is unsupportable and overly broad. I'll be correcting it read "Historically, some conservative Christians..." FeloniousMonk 04:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right.  thanks.  Ungtss 04:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overly broad claim

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

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

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

message: Sorry Sam, but "Leftist" is not the correct term to refer to all critics who use the phrase Christian right in a derogatory fashion:
*The term leftist is generally understood to refer to particular segment of the political spectrum. The wikipedia article on leftist bears this out.
*The term liberal refers to political, social and religious groups, as well as the ideology that often unites them. The wikipedia article on liberal shows this to be the case.
Considering that the critics using the phrase Christian right as an epithet come from many different social, political and religious groups and not just the politically "left", liberal is the proper word. Since Sam Spade has made a point of insisting on "leftists" to the degree that he's reverting any instance of the use of the term "liberal" I'm replacing both phrases, "liberal critics" and "leftist critics," with the compromise phrase Some critics.
As for Sam's claim that "Christian fundamentalist" is a more widely used epithet than "radical religious right," I'd say there's no reason to not include both in the article. As it stands, the passage is logically flawed; it asserts how "Christian Right" is used as an epithet: "...to describe people, movements, and views associated with conservative political activism." Which it follows with a passage on how critics "use phrases such as "religious extremist" or "christian fundamentalist" to refer to the Christian right." That's a non sequitur; the examples provided do not lead to, nor are they equivalent to, using "Christian right" as an epithet. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Using factually accurate terms & valid logic

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

message: OK, I went ahead and cleaned up the Introduction and Issues list, and I think they are now both true and non-inflammatory. However, I also mentioned that the term is generally only used as an epithet by opponents of the "Christian Right", and now that I think more about it, it seems to me that this article should mainly be about the term and its use, and not about any supposed policies of such an entity.
After all, there is no single group that calls itself "The Christian Right", so I am wary of phrases such as these: 
:"Some critics claim that the Christian Right makes generic dominionist "impulse" statements"
"The Christian Right" does not make statements any more than "The Jews" or "The Loony Left" make statements. Any claims made by individuals should be placed in the article about that person, or the group to which they belong. This term is way too general to put specific claims into its mouth.
I also think the 'members' list should name just a handful of especially prominent members, but even that is kind of shaky IMHO. Comments? User:Jmstylr (sig added by Sam Spade  06:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. i do think a list is handy tho, if only so we know who the critics are refering to w the term. I look forward to more contributions from you on this subject. Cheers, Sam Spade  06:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pondering whether this article can ever be NPOV as it stands 

message: Some critics claim that the Christian Right's political agendas are a form of Dominionism, and have been influenced by intellectual challenges posed by Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism; the latter two are related philosophies that advocate a dissolution of democracy and personal freedoms and a push toward a theocratic or theonomic form of government that regards the Bible as the only valid reference for civics, government, scientific theory or any scholarly pursuit. Opposition groups with this point of view include the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
For example, Chip Berlet, in an American Civil Liberties Union website interview, said in 1996 that, "Reconstructionism is a theology that argues that only Christian men should rule civil society. It has a softer related theology called dominionism. ... Dominionism in general threatens the Church/State separation so vital to our democracy as a pluralist society. Groups such as the Christian Coalition really have adopted many of the tenets of Dominionism, and some key Christian right leaders are close to Reconstructionism, which thinks that the U.S. Constitution is a sub-document overruled by Old Testament Biblical Laws."
:Who, besides User:Cberlet, suggests these things? Sam Spade  13:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not post that on this page.  Someone else did.  A number of groups and individuals have made similar claims. Read the discussion here for details. There just was a national conference on the subject in NYC. See: this page.  --Cberlet 14:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

text: OK. Sam Spade  14:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is this? 

message: The page is losing NPOV and drifting toward an attack on the Christian right. For example the grouping of nut cases like Fred Phelps (and others) in the list of involved people is a propaganda device. I restored a bit of balance, as I once did before. It should not be deleted. Pollinator 20:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree the paragraph should not be deleted, but some recent edits have been way too POV in bashing critics of the Christian Right. More cited material is needed. --Cberlet 20:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drifting toward a propaganda tool 

message: I am sure a quick google search will produce substantial information that is critical of the Christian right movement and its methods.  I repeat, why is this article squeeky clean when it comes to existence of any information critical of the movement?  This article currently reads like a hagiography. zen master    T  21:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Christian_right#Dominionism. Sam Spade  21:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an infinitesimally tiny part of the criticism and controversy issue surrounding the christian right.  It almost seems as if the Christian right designed that section themselves.  May I add other factually citable sections on how others perceive and criticize the movement and its tactics? zen master    T  21:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no criticisms/controversy sub section? 

message: I provide cites, SamSpade provides original research, unresearched opinions, and uncited claims. Pick a paragraph, provde a cite, and lets have a real discussion. Or shall we go directly to mediation?--Cberlet 21:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You provide bias, assuming the Christian right is an objective group, and I provide NPOV, that it is a subjective label. And the problem is? Sam Spade  21:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't evade the issue.  What cites do you have to back up you opinions? William Martin is the biographer of Billy Graham and a centrist historian with an impressive reputation.  What problem do you have with his statement that there is a Christian Right? Your claims are without foundation. I cite my sentences.  How about you? --Cberlet 21:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet is correct here. Sam Spade's attempt at rewriting the article was filled with errors of fact, grammar, and logic and largely whitewashed over the issues. ZM's point is relevant as well, there are an abundance of critics and criticisms in found society that are not present in the article. This needs to be addressed. FeloniousMonk 21:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There you have it, all neutral sources agree, Sam is biased against smearing christians. Sam Spade  22:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Well thats insightful. Sam Spade  22:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Goof grief, Zen-Master, let me guess--SamSpade and I are part of a vast conspiracy?--Cberlet 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Apparently the objective of which being the prevention of criticism of the christian right, which, BTW, I am ok w! Criticize the chistian right all you want, but don't claim its a real, objective group in the narrative! Cite all you want, its no more neutral to say the Christian right is an actual movement (in the narrative) than it is for me to say that politically correctness is a real movement (in the narrative). We both know they are, but the article must remain NPOV. Do you see my point, Cberlet? Sam Spade  22:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the 551,000 Google results for "christian right"  you'll find many Christian groups that self-identify as part of the 'Christian right' movement. FeloniousMonk 22:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Next step is mediation

message: "Historically, conservative Christians were influential in the abolitionism movement to end slavery, the advocation of civil rights, and prohibition."
:Perhaps I'm dating myself, but I distinctly remember Southern conservative Protestant Christians, organized white Southern Baptists specifically, playing a significant role in the 1960's opposing civil rights,  public school integration, and busing. Considering this, this phrase as quoted is unsupportable and overly broad. I'll be correcting it read "Historically, some conservative Christians..." FeloniousMonk 04:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right.  thanks.  Ungtss 04:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overly broad claim

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

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

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

message: Sorry Sam, but "Leftist" is not the correct term to refer to all critics who use the phrase Christian right in a derogatory fashion:
*The term leftist is generally understood to refer to particular segment of the political spectrum. The wikipedia article on leftist bears this out.
*The term liberal refers to political, social and religious groups, as well as the ideology that often unites them. The wikipedia article on liberal shows this to be the case.
Considering that the critics using the phrase Christian right as an epithet come from many different social, political and religious groups and not just the politically "left", liberal is the proper word. Since Sam Spade has made a point of insisting on "leftists" to the degree that he's reverting any instance of the use of the term "liberal" I'm replacing both phrases, "liberal critics" and "leftist critics," with the compromise phrase Some critics.
As for Sam's claim that "Christian fundamentalist" is a more widely used epithet than "radical religious right," I'd say there's no reason to not include both in the article. As it stands, the passage is logically flawed; it asserts how "Christian Right" is used as an epithet: "...to describe people, movements, and views associated with conservative political activism." Which it follows with a passage on how critics "use phrases such as "religious extremist" or "christian fundamentalist" to refer to the Christian right." That's a non sequitur; the examples provided do not lead to, nor are they equivalent to, using "Christian right" as an epithet. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Using factually accurate terms & valid logic

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