All Comments for: Phrase 'Religious Right' Misused, Conservatives Say | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > February (Web-only)

Christianity Today, February (Web-only), 2009 |

Phrase 'Religious Right' Misused, Conservatives Say

Leaders often identified with the Religious Right want journalists and academics to lay the term to rest.

Sarah Pulliam | posted 2/12/2009 10:19AM

...

After Election Day, the BBC declared that times are uncertain for the Religious Right. In September 2008, Newsweek declared a Religious-Right Revival after Sarah Palin was nominated vice president. ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 54 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

Rav	Posted: February 21, 2009 11:34 AM

Can greed, political ambitions, intolerance and hypocricy be exclusively attributed to Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats? It seems that the "conservative side of certain Christians groups has been so politically charged that Christian views and values can not been entramped in political agendas and economic ideologies hurting thus Christianity's role in society. Have you ever seen or found any way to criticize Christian leaders of the Republican party who for the most part messed this country? I strongly believe that the goal and objectives of the conservative must be focused on the Christians holding political offices and to be guardian of the values of the Christian message and to look after and evaluate how Christian leaders provide a quality leadership in the arena of politics and economics. May be a new name will come that reflect this accountability for Christians involved in the public life of the nation, I suggest a Christian Political Reflections (CPR) guidance.

tom	Posted: February 20, 2009 3:43 AM


I know a few superb terms to replace "religious right" how about Morons Bigots Wankers Sky Fairy believers Truth twisters Hatred Promoters Suckers thats just a few..and all honest !!!

Mark P. Kessinger

Posted: February 19, 2009 8:30 PM


They can call themselves whatever they want. Whatever term is ultimately used, as soon as it becomes associated in the general public's perception with the typical rhetoric and agenda of the group "formerly known as the religious right," it will have a negative association in the minds of many Americans.

Laurel

Posted: February 17, 2009 10:45 PM


Every one of the names they don't want anymore are names they come up with for themselves in the first place! The negative connontations come from their own actions and will be re-attached to whatever new moniker they settle on next. Sorry.

Ted Hewlett

Posted: February 17, 2009 3:19 PM

Why not use the term "social conservatives." True, it has no mention of religion in the title, but what unites belevers in social conservatism are moral, not theological beliefs. It is undoubtedly true that the mainstream media is likely to turn any term describing social conservatives into a pejorative in the course of time. Norman's view places all who can be dumped into the category of religious right in some sort of ghetto, even though they subscribe to the essentials that have been foundational to our society. His is the attitude spread by a fairly large section of the mainstream media, I'm afraid.

Casey

Posted: February 17, 2009 12:57 PM


I must agree with all those who point out that the Religious Right chose the term Religious Right themselves. It has come to have negative connotations because many people disagree with their politics, and thus view them negatively. It's no different from the fact that "homosexual" has negative connotations in evangelical communities. That's how they see it.

jim filyaw

Posted: February 17, 2009 12:06 PM

i daresay these whackjobs have realized how poisonous their 'brand' has become. inventing another nickname isn't going to solve their problem. you can only sell the witches brew of hypocrisy, intolerance, greed, and political ambition so long regardless of what you call it. instead of worrying about what they're called, these birds would be well advised to look to their own souls, if they have any.

Amara

Posted: February 17, 2009 8:47 AM


Ok. They don't like "Religious Right" or "Moral Majority"? How about 'Talibaptists', 'Christofacists', or 'Christianist'? After all, these lables actually tell people what your purpose it...a Christocentric state governed by biblical law.

martin

Posted: February 17, 2009 7:36 AM

OK! So you you passionately believe abortion is wrong and that Church is a good thing and politely point out that almost every founder of this country was a right wing extremist according to the lefts definition. After all of this and more, you people still hate us. What are you so frightened of? I believe you do not want to look inward into your own life. You do not want to be judged by a God. So you demonize the messenger instead of He who wrote the message. After all of this, God still loves you! You must believe with your own will. Nobody wants to force someone to believe. It may seem that way, but only because of your resistance.

Jerone

Posted: February 17, 2009 3:42 AM

If right-wing means pro-gun, pro death-penalty, anti government intervention, anti-abortion and anti gay-rights, is then not 'religious right' in many ways a very appropriate name for most of those who are now labelled 'religious right'. Would not a change towards a more peaceful and tolerant set of values be the way for those now labelled 'religious right' or 'fundamentalist' to change the way they are named?

Chris

Posted: February 16, 2009 5:04 PM

When someone says that a term has "a life of it's own", isn't he overlooking the fact that it's the actions of the group that most influences people's opinion? That's like the SLA complaining because their name is associated with violent crimes - it's the actions of the group that developed public perception in the first place. Even if conservative Christians managed to shake loose of "Religious Right" and other labels, the public will still have the same perception of the group until they fundamentally change themselves. Rebranding the ideology can only change public opinion until everyone realizes that nothing has changed.

Marcia

Posted: February 16, 2009 12:30 PM

"It amazes me how often in public discourse really pejorative phrases are used." Me too, Gary Bauer. On feb 4 at humanevents.com you wrote: "Barack Obama is an unflinching friend of the abortion industry" and called him "the most brazenly pro-abortion president in our nation’s history" (see http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30553) I'd watch the pejorative - or should I say hyperbolic -- stone throwing in that glass house of yours.

K.	Posted: February 16, 2009 11:23 AM


Lisa K's comments are inappropriate and show a lack of maturity. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but do it with some class.

John B Hodges

Posted: February 16, 2009 10:42 AM


For a more accurate label, how about "Professional Swindler"? Obey me and give me money, and you'll be rewarded after you die.

Anonymous

Posted: February 16, 2009 7:43 AM

The term "Religious Right" has replaced "Holy Rollers" in the US idiom. But ever since people found out how very much the evangelical movement backed the former President--even calling him at one point, the "Second Coming"--and then learned that Bush had lied, tortured and murdered, they have been trying to get rid of the connotation that they had associated themselves with another Hitler. Is think that they now would count themselves lucky to be called "Holy Rollers" and move back to the fringes from whence they came, before radical rightwingers like Jerry Falwell and his ilk decided to back the likes of George W. Bush.

Dan Vojir

Posted: February 16, 2009 3:49 AM

Of course, one can argue that the term "Religious Right" is not correct since the group it points to is neither religious nor right. I prefer Christofascist. Yes, I know it's probably even more pejorative than American Taliban, but I think it suits their ways ...and means. Tony Perkins could never be trusted to include Jews and Mormons in anything, let alone a descriptive name. He is a perfect example of a Christofascist as is his commander, James Dobson. If you look at the tenets of fascism, you have only to cut and paste their names or the names of their organizations. Read Perkins' daily FRC screed, with unbridled hatred for everything and everyone "liberal". It would be truly scary if Perkins weren't such a bad writer. Evidently Regent University did nothing to instill in him anything but the basest literary style: it doesn't read any better than Hearst's old "Yellow Journalism." As for a new name for the group: People of the Trailer Park would be fairly descriptive.

Nancyf

Posted: February 15, 2009 8:12 PM


Me and my family want to know if they would approve of us calling them the "Religious Wrong"? It would fit better. And they are still supporting the destruction of the constitution; or as they call it: The Reconstruction.

Grover Syck

Posted: February 15, 2009 12:53 PM


The 'religious right' is to the right of the most right of the republicans. A more appropriate name would be the 'extreme religious right'.

Lisa K.

Posted: February 15, 2009 12:05 PM


How about brainless hate mongering fuckheads?

am	Posted: February 15, 2009 9:09 AM


"Socially conservative" and "evangelical" are no different than the other terms. It's not terminology that has earned the religious right its bad image. It's the other way around. The public actions of conservative Christians have tainted all terms associated with them.

Hugh Vincelette

Posted: February 14, 2009 10:39 PM

Religious leaders , and theologians can fine tune the definitions or labels by which they wish to be known, until they are cyanotic. There may be moderate Christians . But there is no such animal as a 'conservative Christian'. There are , however ; in significant numbers ; ultra-conservative believers, who assume the role of religious police such as one finds in Saudi Arabia. They conduct themselves with greater sophistication , but their aims are identical. Submission of society , at any cost. They disparage science , revise history , and ignore truths , in their endeavours. Criticisms are immediately described as denigrating God. They place their all on a book they claim is the inerrant word of a deity that created the marvel of the universe we occupy. It is difficult to accept their version of the maker of the miracle called the 'tricarboxylic cycle', as also having giving the admonishment to " suffer not a witch to live". Hatred is not a family value.

Anonymous

Posted: February 14, 2009 4:35 PM


Rayvo Ditto Sabaean. I couldn't have said it any better

John	Posted: February 14, 2009 11:09 AM

Perhaps there should be new terms to describe the "religious right". Actually, it could be divided into to distinct terms: 1. religious authoritarian leader and 2. religious authoritarian follower. Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, et. al. would fall into "religious authoritarian leader" category. "American Taliban" is not a accurate description for these leaders. It's more accurate to call them, the "american pharisees" because they present themselves to be christian leaders, not Islamic leaders. Also, if we read what Christ says about the Pharisees in the New Testament it's a pretty much a description of them. For example, they like to do their good works in public, look down on others, and cozy up to the powerful political leaders...

Crede

Posted: February 14, 2009 9:33 AM


When Chrisitians begin to live a life of love, non-judgement and peace than perhaps they will start to remove the stain they inflicted on their Masters Garment.

Jesse

Posted: February 14, 2009 9:01 AM

How about separating Christianity as a movement from politics, whether it be right or left, liberal or conservative? The mixing of both has harmed the name of the church of Jesus Christ and it has harmed the country. As a Christian, were I in politics, I could show my faith by my works -which is what I do every day in my line of work, to the amazement and admiration of co-workers, superiors, and customers. And that, my friend, is true witness that nobody can change or take away.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment