Talk:Religious right

message: Why is the main article not capitalized (Religious right, to which Religious Right redirects), but the bold first-sentence term clearly is?   AFAIK the "Right" as in the conservative Right has always been capitalized in its noun form, though I could be wrong.   Just curious about the apparent inconsistency.  -- PhilipR 16:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed several links because they are not representative of large or well-known critical groups that oppose the Religious Right. Furthermore, this page is to explain the debate over the term, and the Main page is Christian Right.--Cberlet 00:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Note to anonymous editor. Your text is very good, but you are putting it on the wrong page. I moved the text to the Christian Right page.--Cberlet 02:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

message: What the hell? There aren't enough Jewish wing-nuts in the US to make them a faction within the American political spectrum. If anything, pro-Israeli people and the Religious Rights have common interests and common foreign policy goals.SteveSims 06:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish right? 

message: Article begins with "Sensei-98 states:...". What this means? Who is Sensei-98? Saigon from europe 21:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Sensei-98? 

message: This page is not the page for extended text on the Christian Right. This is a page about the Religious Right.  If folks want to claim there are similar issues across the Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu right (and there are), then they need to provide cites.  The University of Chicago studies on fundamentalism are a good start, as is the book by Karen Armstrong. I have cut all the uncited text and the material that was really about the Christian Right. Let's add cited material only. As the lead suggests, this term itself is controversial.--Cberlet 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is not about the Christian Right

message: "…the Jewish Task Force is the most activist in religious right activity…"??? Is this to be understood as saying that the (tiny, obscure) Jewish Task Force are more activist than, say Focus on Family? If so, then this is absurd. If not, then this is poorly worded. - Jmabel | Talk 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Task Force 

message: The last time I looked at the Christian Writer Category page it was an alphabetical list of individual persons, not groups. So I removed "Christian Writers" as one of the categories. Was it logical for me to do so?  If not I'm open for discussion :-)  --Awinger48 18:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Writers as Category??

message: Specific complaints?--Cberlet 03:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the flag?

message: "While a lonely voice on the political and religious spectrum, the Jewish Task Force is the most activist in religious right activity. While organisations like "Jews for Morality","Jews for Life," "Toward Tradition" and the "International Committee for Truth about the Holocaust" do exist, these groups are mostly used for commentary. All criticize liberalism, and liberal Jews within Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative Judaism."
That seemed fairly biased and had several sweeping generalizations.  I stuck it here so that if someone wants to do something with it, they can.Minidoxigirli 21:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Jewish Chunk

message: I found this section to be more than a little odd. It is unsourced, and narrowly concentrates on the opposition to a single piece of legislation by a very small minority of New Zealanders (only 0.7% of NZers identify as Muslims, and "conservative Muslims" would therefore be an even smaller fraction). It would be better to concentrate on the likes of the Destiny Church (and its unsuccesful political offshoot) or even the Christian Heritage Party, over a wider range of issues. But, as the main New Zealand article states:
Religion does not play a major role in New Zealand public life. Overtly Christian-based political parties such as Christian Heritage and Destiny have been unsuccessful, and the religion (or lack of religion) of political leaders - while generally known - is considered by most to be a private matter. Although faith-based lobby groups exist, political parties have recently been harmed more than helped by their support.
Hrafn42 13:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand section 

message: I first came across this article when following a link from an article on a conservative Christian activist. It occurs to me that most references to the 'Religious Right' will be to the Christian Right. Would it be appropriate to rename this article to '(Non-Christian) Religious Right' (or perhaps '(Pan-religious) Religious Right') and create a disambiguation page at 'Religious Right' both pointing to the Christian Right & this article? This would probably save a lot of confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrafn42 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a lot of the information on the Christian right article should be moved here, and the Christian article should just cover the information specific to Christianity.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation and Article name 

message: Does the (non-Christian) Religious Right have any significant involvement in the (almost exclusively American) Culture war? If not, then I would suggest that discussion of this would be more appropriately made in the Christian right article, and thus the deletion of the following statement:
"The disagreements between the Religious Right and feminist, gay and social liberal activists are sometimes referred to as the Culture War." Hrafn42 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutlure wars reference 

message: Given that there is virtually no content in this article that is not either unreferenced, or as closely connected with the Christian right as it is with the (non-Christian) Religious right, I would suggest either merging it with that article or deletion entirely. Hrafn42 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a redirect to Christian right . As far as I know the term religious right is very rarely used to describe Hindu nationalism, Islamism, Millenarianism and Religious Zionism. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer disambiguation. It is not a valid objection to a disambiguation page to state that it has "virtually no content": it isn't supposed to. dab (𒁳) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger or Deletion? 

message: Poemisaglock 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorry! 

message: Why isn't there a Religious Left article?  The Christian Left article contains all the other like factions within the article, so why must the Religious Right have it's own article?  Make no sense. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. This needs to go to a review. (Criticisms of wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs) 06:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Left (disambiguation page)

message: Why is Islamism in this disambig list? It could be considered under the Religious left, as seen in this book published by the Yale University Press. Yet, at the same time Islamism is listed as religious right in this book. So do the reliable sources agree whether it is religious right, or religious left?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the source you cite as placing Islamism on the left places it firmly on the right, stating so several times including on the page that you linked. It points out that Islam has some supporters on the left, but definitely that it itself is on the right. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamism 

message: This page is not a page to add social phenomena you wish to characterize as right wing. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  DISAMBIG must be justifiable via citations