Would you support this?

[John Dibble]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

[John Dibble]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

Focus on the Family is not the fringe of the religious right, they are mainstream in the movement.

If you have a narrow view of what constitutes the religious right, sure.

[John Dibble]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

Focus on the Family is not the fringe of the religious right, they are mainstream in the movement.

If you have a narrow view of what constitutes the religious right, sure.

Not quite. I can't think of any religious right type groups that are like them. What would you consider religious right that are nothing like them, or people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?

Like I said, narrow view of the religious right - and the groups are generally towards the fringe, as they'd be outspoken by the reasonable but unorganized parts otherwise. I know people who consider themselves part of it that aren't unreasonable like this.

[John Dibble]

"Reasonable" is relative term-- to Focus on the Family, opposition to HPV vaccine is perfectly "reasonable". Look at some of the issues listed for the Religous Right. Which ones would you consider reasonable? Of course it varies.

I don't really see how that's relevant. Tons of terms are relative, but it doesn't really change anything, now does it? So, let me just ask you this - do you find that in general I am a reasonable person? If yes, then you can probably assume safely that my judgement on the people I referred to as reasonable is sound.

As to the Wikipedia article, well, it's a Wikipedia article - Wikipedia isn't entirely reliable to be opinion free when it comes to political issues. From the looks of that one it doesn't seem very balanced. Probably written by a lefty by the looks of it, otherwise 'common issues' might include things like faith based charity initiatives and other much more minor issues that have a broader range of support. Instead it only includes extreme issues that for the most part have very little support among the mainstream religious right. Looking at the logs of changes for the article, it was altered to contain all of those 'common issues' by one person on March 8, 2006. It also removed the following paragraphs:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, the editor has a huge bias, so you should link a better article if you want to make a point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't know if they would or not. As to the second question, I OUTRIGHT SAID THEY WEREN'T ORGANIZED. Make sure you've read fully before you respond.

You and BRTD are way blowing what I said out of proportion - all I said is I wouldn't broadly categorize the more extreme elements of the religious right as being the mainstream in it.