Talk:Religious right

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)

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)

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)

Jewish right?

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)

Who is Sensei-98?

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

It would seem to me much of the commentary about the "Religious Right" is nothing but a strawman.

Page is not about the Christian Right

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)

Jewish Task Force

"…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)

Randall Balmers new book talks about the origin of the religious right

COMMONWEALTH CLUB SPEAKER ARCHIVE Recorded Jul 11 2006 An Evangelical's Lament on Politicized Religion RANDALL BALMER http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/06/06-07balmer-audio.html

Randall Balmer "Thy Kingdom Come" 7/30/2006 Randall Balmer is an evangelical Christian. He is also a liberal, and a Democrat. And he deplores the way the religious right has, as he puts it, "hijacked" his faith for their own political purposes. Balmer, the editor-at-large for Christianity Today, makes an impassioned call for a return to the true evangelical principles of his faith in his book "Thy Kingdom Come." http://www.podfeed.net/podcast/Eye+on+Books+BOOKCAST/1353 Aihyah | Talk 14:07 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Writers as Category??

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)

Why the flag?

Specific complaints?--Cberlet 03:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Jewish Chunk

"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)

Why the "religious right" does not call itself that

A religious group that is socially conservative is thought to be part of the "religious right". The Catholic Church is a religious group that is socially conservative, and so would be called, by that definition, a part of the "religious right". However, since its teachings on our responsibility to care for the poor, the sick, the imprisioned, the weak, look not to the invisible hand of the free market, but to visible hands, one may see a "leftist" influence in the Church. Hence, "religious right" is an incomplete description. A statement in 1985 from Cardinal Bernardin: [1]

• Martin | talk • contribs 06:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed from:

The term is used most often by the political left and generally carries a negative connotation; it is rarely if ever, used by the Religious Right to describe themselves.

to :

The term is used most often by the political left, pejoritively.
Sorry I did not include this comment earlier, to, possibly, avoid the reversion.
Martin | talk • contribs 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cites and references

The Wiki cite police have decreed that rather than relying om the many references already on this page, we apparently must begin using one of the many obscure and tedious citation systems competing for supremacy here on Wikipedia. Does anyone have a preference? We should only use one citation system.--Cberlet 17:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation check: Does anyone have a clue what these references have to do with this page?:

Shapiro, Ben. Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (ISBN 0-7852-6148-6), 2004.

Shapiro, Ben. Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (ISBN 0-89526-016-6), Regnery, 2005.

If there is no response, they should be deleted.--Cberlet 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that you are serious. What part of it don't you understand? Shapiro is one of several people of the Jewish faith that promote the cultural conservative values (as Shapiro does in the mentioned cites) that are very similar to those promoted by conservative Christians. Pollinator 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet there is no mention on the page of this fact, which, if you tickle the keyboard and insert it, will explain to the reader why these cites are there. Thanks. I am just trying to start the process of adding more intext citations to satisfy the citation police. It is a useful addition to the page. I recognized the other references. Too much coffee?  :-) --Cberlet 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand section

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[2], 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)

I tracked the New Zealand section to this edit. It is clear from the original version that cross-religion Religious Right cooperation is a "smaller" issue in New Zealand than in "the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom" -- so why is NZ spun out into its own section?

The material on NZ was originally added in this edit. It works reasonably well as part of a contrast between NZ and other English-speaking countries (though needs citations), but is completely dysfunctional when stuck out on its own. Hrafn42 14:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Article name

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).

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)

Cutlure wars reference

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)

Merger or Deletion?

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)

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)

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)

sorry!

Poemisaglock 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC) sorry about all the posts. shouldn't have done that but i just the religious right to no end+they really are unresponsive like forever on the static apnea page

Religious Left (disambiguation page)

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)

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)

Islamism

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)

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)

DISAMBIG must be justifiable via citations

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)