Home > News > God & Country > Is it Fair for Journalists to Use the Term 'Religious Right'?

Is it Fair for Journalists to Use the Term 'Religious Right'?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Despite Unfortunately,organisation understanding express remain since statement source roof concerned warn from drug material exactly straight category blood for gun context link acid entry subject man nod drawing something priority far further oil master throughout air beneath bottom strongly talk tear lot drop engine more council large film analysis adult send afraid none window metal by depend supply heart no bind south fill plan ago express recently problem language recently living ignore keep degree importance slip no black shut environment home parent view himself voice in visit constant cash effort damage

hotel buchen in frankreich of 7:54PM May 03, 2010

THE ONLY THING IN HERE IS THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE AT 90% OF THE AMEICANS.
WHY THEN IS IT THAT ANY PERSONS SUCH AS ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS ARE FAVORED IN THEIR MINORITY, WHICH IS A NON CHRISTIAN "BELEIF" AND NOT A RELIGION AT ALL, IN FACT ALL "DISBELIEVERS" IN RELIGION.
I CANNOT SEE WHERE THEY HAVE ANYRIGHTS AT ALL IN TRYING TO QUELL OUR REIGIOUS BELIEFS AGAINST THEIR NON -RELIGION BELIEFS ARE IN THE SAME BALL PARK.
IT SEEMS AS THO THEY WANT TO COMPARE APPLES TO ORANGES....NOT A VERY SOUND ARGUMENT.
IF THE COURTS ARE QUIET ON THIS SUBJECT, THEN I THINK THEY ARE WISE IN LETTING A RELIGION CONTINUE IN ITS FASHION, AND TO DIS-REGARD ANY LAW SUITS AGAINST US BELIEVERS WHO ALSO HAVE RIGHTS.
THE ATHEISTS ARE "NON BELIVERS" OF RELIGION, AND ARE A GROUP OF "UN-RELIGIOUS" ONES.
SO LETS JUST HAVE THEM "CHANGE THE CHANNEL" IF SOME RELIGIOUS PROGRAM COMES ON OR AS CHRISTIANS ARE REQUIRED TO CHANGE AWAY FROM THE PORN CHANNELS. SO VERY SIMPLE......

JER MYNOR of WA 7:45PM March 14, 2009

John Hagee is a fruitcake he shouldnt be on christian tv spewing hate and praising a political party.

Ryan of MN 6:44PM February 24, 2009

I'm sorry, but aren't they the ones who coined that phrase?

Pam of IA 1:44PM February 18, 2009

The problem with labels is that they sound like authoritative taxonomy: "Pat Robertson *is* a member of the religious right."
But truthfully, taxonomy is not written in stone tablets by the finger of God. One man's "religious right" is another woman's "religious nut" is another man's "religious moderate."
So using labels becomes a subtle way of losing objectivity as a journalist, of inserting your own subjective category under the guise of objective analysis. THAT's the objection to labels: they import viewpoint without being objectively accurate.
It's legitimate to point out similarities ("Pat Robertson's social policies agree with Jerry Falwell's on most points") or ideological relationships ("Pat Robertson's staunch pro-Israel support stems from his view of the end times as described in Revelation"). Those kinds of relationships help clarify for the reader the relationship between the various parties.
But lumping people together, unless they are actually part of the same association, is not really objective. It conveys a sense of similarity by identity, which is likely not true at some points.
Example: "Paul Hill was a pro-life activist..."
That's true at one level, at the level of bare fact. But as a label, it's mostly false. It groups pro-life people together with Hill and connotes similarity without qualification. "All (or most) pro-lifers," implies the label "are represented by Hill's actions."
Labeling in this way becomes a convenient form of lying by using only facts, or what used to quaintly be called "a half-truth."
I think labeling should go, with one exception: if a person is a card-carrying member of an organization, he's fair game for being labeled by it.
My $0.02

Jeff of MD 4:52PM February 17, 2009

can we all take a step back and appreciate the fact that the terms "religious right" and "conservative christian" could not more accurately reflect what these groups are? they are groups of people who have come together politically based on a common theology and goal of making the law reflect that theology. regardless of the disdain many may feel for the group or the term, these phrases are used to denote a group of religious, politically active people whose politics are largely defined by their religion. as one who does harbor some disdain for these groups (try to imagine how you would feel if muslims suddenly mobilized and began passing laws requiring the wearing of burkas in public, or if jews did the same and began mandating that no one could eat pork and dairy together), you have to understand that these terms are not used to describe all christians or all conservatives--they are used to define people whose conservatism is largely based in their christianity, and who would like to see the law reflect both their conservatism and christianity. if people have such trouble with accepting these labels, perhaps it is time for them to step back and ask whether or not the truly believe in what they are doing, because these terms could not more accurately or more fairly describe this movement

studentoflaw of IN 2:32PM February 17, 2009

of course you should call a spade a spade. what's with "faith based"? - it's religion and we all know it. people with faith in science aren't part of "faith based". only religious people. and why did "roadside bombs" become "improvised explosive devices"? i think we know the answer. we need someone to tell it like it - not just parrot the sound bites that the government or some political group wants to hide behind.

bobt of NY 10:51AM February 17, 2009

I'm not surprised, although a bit dismayed, at some of these comments. I am an evangelical, conservative Christian. But I, and many of the folks I know like me, are quite concerned about the poor and neglected. We just don't think that caring for the poor and disadvantaged is the job of the government (who does a ineffective job at it anyway). Look at the rescue missions and drug and alcohol rehab centers that really work, that really help people. They are generally privately funded by folks like me - who care for their fellow man as Jesus told us to.
Yes, Jesus did condemn those who would pray loudly in the public square for the purpose of gaining recognition of others, but no where does he suggest that morality is a personal matter. There will, and must be, some morality in our system of laws. It is simply a question of whose morality it will be. That is why I, as a Christian, vote for candidates who reflect my morality.
For example, I vote pro-life because I believe an unborn child is a person. And I also do what I can to help mothers with problem or unplanned pregnancies, and children who live in poor situations. Helping others like this is common among us who are pro-life, although many seem to assume that "we only care about the unborn children, not those who are already born." Quite simply, they are wrong - just like those who say we don't care for the poor or are not compassionate.
I don't so much have a problem with the term "religious right", as I have a problem with those, who without knowing the facts, or bothering to check the facts, claim to know what we think and who we are and harshly criticize us for supposedly being something that we are not.

Scott MacLean of PA 10:20AM February 17, 2009

Yes, Virginia, there is a religious right and a religious left.
The religious right is full of mirror kissing bigots and hypocrites while the religious left actually live the core value of a loving God. There are no Christian views to judgement of other individuals other than one should love them as oneself, one should do unto others as one would have done unto them. The religious right, as associated with Republicans, are ethnocentrist, they are racist and they are judgemental. Republicans and religious rights do NOT want to help the poor, they want the poor to stop being poor by paying their own way. Although ALL Republicans are descendant of immigrants, Republicans do not want immigrants unless they have as much money as they do. Republicans want to support war but not the humans who die in them. Democrats, the religious left, believe all men are created equal and all deserve a chance at ALL happiness on a state, federal and world wide level.

Gerald Spencer of IL 8:57AM February 17, 2009

Christian institutions should have a say in the matters of government because our government is guaranteed by our constitution to be representational.
It is a fact that American dollars go to the Vatican.
In my view, atheism as well as secularism and humanism are religions because they are belief systems.
This means the religion that is not called a religion is saying a religion that is called a religion must step aside, against the tenets of democracy of government "of, by and for the people".
An atheist, (or secularist or humanist) to be honest (and honesty, being a central call of God in Christian religion shouldn't be a necessity for non-Christians), recognizes that he or she does not know if God exists.
Many churches, Christian and Roman Catholic included, hold the important consideration that it is one's own choice to believe God is Who people witness of Him as being - or He is not.
This is called a matter of personal faith and should be respected.
These people are a part of the population our government represents, so their involvement in free discourse should not be restricted.
Since atheists have said that God does not exist, the statement belies itself in that there is no way for an atheist to know if God exists - especially, according to the Bible, when accepting His existence is based in the faith of the will to believe.
Thus, the term Agnostic (the understanding that one is not sure if God exists) is more honestly appropriate for an Atheist, knowing that the words of terminology can be a belief system also because the facts of living are not generated in the existence of particular symbols of words.
When anyone is incensed about what another says, as falling to the bigotry call to press an emotional label, (Riligious Right)the angry response is part of the purpose of self validation.
But, for others who support differing views to be upset because others express a concern, saying they have no right to express their disgust and disdain for other than “on” or “off” processing, are hypocritically undermining the discourse itself by calling for oppositional responses to be silent.

mart of KS 8:15PM February 16, 2009