In (Further) Defense of 'Religious Right'
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
There were lots of well-reasoned responses on my post arguing about the propriety of journalists using the terms "Christian Right" and "Religious Right." Some of you in the Christian right were fine with the term. Some of you on the left thought it was too kind to religious conservatives. One of the more provocative comments came from David Arndt of MI:
The way a group is named is the first indicator of how the story will be framed. Why not allow groups to be called by the names they want to be called by? Does the reporter think that "media elite" or "drive-by-media" are accurate labels for his profession? I rather doubt it.
It's fine to allow groups to be called by the names they prefer, except when those labels are misleading, obscuring a group's actual identity as a way to advance its mission. For instance, some religious left groups prefer to be identified as part of the religious middle, in order to appear to be above the political fray, even though their positions and priorities suggest otherwise. Honoring their wish impedes journalism, which is meant to inform, not to advance the agendas of the people and organizations we cover.
This reporter doesn't object to the term "media elite" because it's descriptive, even if it does have negative connotations for some. "Drive-by-media," by contrast, is heavily judgmental and is intended to insult, putting the media in league with violent criminals who do drive-by shootings.
Terms like "Christian Right" and "Religious Right" fall into the former category. What part of "Christian Right" is insulting? Christian? Right? Members of the movement are proudly Christian and proudly conservative.
Another commenter, Bob Holman of MO, writes:
[I]f the press and others are going to use the term "Religious Right" we should then, to be correct, use the term "unreligious Left".
I often use the term secular left when writing about unreligious liberals. But not everyone on the left is unreligious, just like not everyone on the right belongs to the Christian right.
- Read more by Dan Gilgoff.
- Read more about religion.
Tags: religion
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (7) | Print
Reader Comments
Unbelievers are right in most of their thinking
You might be one for whom religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. You might be right: myths and a religious fantasy have influenced human minds with larger strength than reality, and the “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. Most people don’t dare to confront their religious beliefs, opt for the status quo, or become marginalized.
Bishop John Shelby Spong says that “Christianity Reformed From its Roots – A Life Centered in God” “rightly points out that those who seek to defend Christianity’s past are also killing Christianity’s future.” I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence! Eminent philosophers and thinkers might give you an idea if this book might be an insightful reading for you (links below). You may look also at excerpts at Amazon.com.
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
Unbelievers are right in most of their thinking
You might be one for whom religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. You might be right: myths and a religious fantasy have influenced human minds with larger strength than reality, and the “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. Most people don’t dare to confront their religious beliefs, opt for the status quo, or become marginalized.
Bishop John Shelby Spong says that “Christianity Reformed From its Roots – A Life Centered in God” “rightly points out that those who seek to defend Christianity’s past are also killing Christianity’s future.” I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence! Eminent philosophers and thinkers might give you an idea if this book might be an insightful reading for you (links below). You may look also at excerpts at Amazon.com.
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
Spudsy of IL is Spot On
Why can't all the religious people that voted for Republicans realize that Republicans have no intention of making abortion illegal.
Reagan, Bush 2, and McCain flip-flopped to run for President. Bush 1 said he was against abortion, but would not take any action to end abortion.
advertisement
