Christian right Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ==Views== ===Education=== The Christian right strongly advocates for a system of educational choice, using a system of [[school voucher]]s, instead of public education. Vouchers would be government funded and could be redeemed for "a specified maximum sum per child per years if spent on approved educational services".<ref>Spring, Joel. ''Political Agendas for Education: From the Religious Right to the Green Party''. Second Edition. (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002)</ref> This method would allow parents to determine which school their child attends while relieving the economic burden associated with private schools. The concept is popular among constituents of church-related schools, including those affiliated with Roman Catholicism. ===Evolution=== {{see also|Creation and evolution in public education}} The Protestant members of the Christian right in the United States generally promote the teaching of [[creationism]] and [[intelligent design]] as opposed to, or alongside, biological evolution.<ref name="Ciment2015">{{cite book|last=Ciment|first=James|title=Postwar America: An Encyclopedia of Social, Political, Cultural, and Economic History|date=March 26, 2015|publisher=Routledge|language=en|isbn=9781317462354|page=513|quote=Throughout the twentieth century, many evangelicals accepted theistic evolution ... Some Christian right organizations supported the teaching of creationism, along with evolution, in public schools.}}</ref><ref name="Wilson2007">{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=J. Matthew|title=From Pews to Polling Places: Faith and Politics in the American Religious Mosaic|date=October 22, 2007|publisher=Georgetown University Press|language=en |isbn=9781589013261|page=178|quote=Among Catholics and Latinos who practice other religious traditions, more than seven in ten support having organized prayer in public schools. ... Catholics are much more likely to state that both evolution and creationism should be taught in the schools.}}</ref><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/11/ap/national/mainD8DPVRQ84.shtml Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060809024450/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/11/ap/national/mainD8DPVRQ84.shtml |date=August 9, 2006 }}, CBSNews.com</ref><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/10/politics/main1036232.shtml|Robertson: Pa. Voters Rejected God] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130511162036/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/10/politics/main1036232.shtml%7crobertson: |date=May 11, 2013 }}, CBSNews.com</ref> Some supporters of the Christian right have opposed the teaching of evolution in the past, but they did not have the ability to stop it being taught in public schools as was done during the [[Scopes Trial]] in [[Dayton, Tennessee]], in which a science teacher went on trial for teaching about the subject of evolution in a public school.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/legal/bkgrd.htm |title=Court decisions regarding Evolution/Creationism |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref> Other "Christian right organizations supported the teaching of creationism, along with evolution, in public schools", specifically promoting [[theistic evolution]] (also known as evolutionary creationism) in which God is regarded as the originator of the process.<ref name="Ciment2015"/><ref name="Wilson2007"/> Members of and organizations associated with the Christian right, such as the [[Discovery Institute]], created and popularized the modern concept of intelligent design, which became widely known only with the publication of the book ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' in 1989.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/the-true-origin.html |title=The true origin of 'intelligent design' |last=Matzke |first=Nick |author-link=Nick Matzke |date=August 14, 2007 |website=[[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |type=Blog |access-date=July 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120327191315/http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/the-true-origin.html |archive-date=March 27, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Discovery Institute, through their intelligent design initiative called the ''[[Center for Science and Culture]]'', has endorsed the [[teach the controversy|teach the controversy approach]]. According to its proponents, such an approach would ensure that both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory were discussed in the curriculum.<ref>Slack, Gordy. ''The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything''. (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2007), 67.</ref> This tactic was criticized by Judge [[John E. Jones III]] in ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', describing it as "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."<ref>[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Memorandum Opinion by Judge John E. Jones III, page 89]]</ref> The overwhelming majority of scientific research, both in the United States and elsewhere, has concluded that the theory of evolution, using the [[scientific theory|technical definition]] of the word theory, is the only viable explanation of the development of life, and an overwhelming majority of biologists strongly support its presentation in public school science classes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve |title=Project Steve |publisher=Ncse.com |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref> Outside the United States, as well as among American Catholics and Mainline Protestants, Christian conservatives have generally come to [[theistic evolution|accept]] the theory of evolution.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2014/11/03/pope-backs-evolution-vatican-calls-creation-%E2%80%98blasphemous%E2%80%99#.VOyIar-sWgM |title=Pope backs evolution, Vatican calls creation 'blasphemous' |access-date=February 24, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150214060813/http://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2014/11/03/pope-backs-evolution-vatican-calls-creation-%E2%80%98blasphemous%E2%80%99#.VOyIar-sWgM |archive-date=February 14, 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity|author=Chris Irvine|date=February 11, 2009|work=The Telegraph}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.churchofengland.org/about/policy-and-thinking/our-views|title=Our views|website=The Church of England}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution|author=Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent|date=September 13, 2008|work=The Telegraph}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/christianity-evolution|title=Christianity in Evolution|access-date=February 24, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150224170354/http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/christianity-evolution|archive-date=February 24, 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref> ===Sex education=== Some Christian groups advocate for the removal of sex education literature from public schools,<ref>See ''[[Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?]]'' (1968). Also: * {{cite book|author=Janice M. Irvine|title=Talk about Sex: The Battles Over Sex Education in the United States|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jBWYvXt18CwC|year=2004|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=978-0-520-24329-3|page=74}} * {{cite book|author=Gilbert Herdt|title=Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight Over Sexual Rights|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ww0VCgAAQBAJ|date=June 1, 2009|publisher=NYU Press|isbn=978-0-8147-3723-1}} * {{cite journal|last1=Irvine|first1=Janice M.|title=Emotional scripts of sex panics|journal=Sexuality Research and Social Policy|volume=3|issue=3|year=2006|pages=82β94|issn=1868-9884|doi=10.1525/srsp.2006.3.3.82|s2cid=144221306}} * {{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-arizona-education-idUSKBN0IJ2HG20141030|title=Arizona school board votes to remove pages from biology textbook|author=Daniel Wallis|date=October 30, 2014|newspaper=Reuters}} * {{cite web|url=https://azcentral.com/story/news/local/gilbert/2014/10/30/gilbert-schools-edit-abortion-section-textbook/18160307/|title=Gilbert schools to edit 'abortion' section of textbook|date=October 30, 2014|work=azcentral}}{{Dead link|date=December 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> for parental opt-out of comprehensive sex education, or for [[abstinence-only sex education]]. [[Sam Harris]] has written that thirty percent of America's sex-education programs are abstinence based, and ineffective.<ref>Harris, Sam. [[Letter to a Christian Nation]] 2006</ref> ===Schooling=== The Christian right promotes [[homeschooling]] and private schooling as a valid alternative to public education for parents who object to the content being taught at school.{{citation needed|date=September 2020}} In recent years, the percentage of children being homeschooled has risen from 1.7% of the student population in 1999 to 2.2% in 2003.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/index.asp |title=Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 β Executive Summary |publisher=National Center for Education Statistics |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref> Much of this increase has been attributed to the desire to incorporate Christian teachings into the curriculum.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Sep07/Art_Sep07_02.html |title=Popularity of homeschooling rises nationwide, curriculum concerns, safety cited |work=[[Christian Examiner (California)|Christian Examiner]] |access-date=December 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112233842/http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Sep07/Art_Sep07_02.html |archive-date=January 12, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In 2003, 72% of parents who homeschooled their children cited the ability to provide religious or moral instruction as the reason for removing their children from public schools.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/parentsreasons.asp |title=Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 β Parents' Reasons for Homeschooling |publisher=National Center for Education Statistics |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref> The ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' case established that [[creationism]] cannot be taught in public schools, and in response officials have increasingly appropriated public funds for [[Charter schools in the United States|charter schools]] that teach curricula like [[Accelerated Christian Education]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.single.html|title=Creationism in Texas public schools: Undermining the charter movement.|author=Zack Kopplin|date=January 16, 2014|work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]}}</ref> ===Sunday Sabbatarianism=== The Christian right is in favor of legislation that maintains and promotes [[Sabbatarianism|Sunday Sabbatarianism]], such as [[blue laws|Sunday blue laws]] that forbid shopping and restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays, which is the [[Lord's Day]] in mainstream Christianity.<ref name="Bowers2009"/> ===Role of government=== Supporters of the Christian right have no one unified stance on the role of government since the movement is primarily one that advocates [[social conservatism]]; in fact, "struggles [have] broken out in state party organizations" between supporters of the Christian right and other conservatives.<ref name="Farney2012">{{cite book|last=Farney|first=James Harold|title=Social Conservatives and Party Politics in Canada and the United States|year=2012|publisher=University of Toronto Press|language=en|isbn=9781442612600|page=61|quote=Struggles broke out in state party organizations between social conservatives - in general organized by the Christian Coalition - and party activists more interested in fiscal policy, foreign policy, or simply winning office.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/chr_rght.htm |title=The Christian Right, The Twentieth Century, Divining America: Religion in American History, TeacherServe, National Humanities Center |publisher=Nationalhumanitiescenter.org |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref> It promotes conservative interpretations of the Bible as the basis for moral values and enforcing such values by legislation. Some members of the Christian right, especially Catholics, accept the Catholic Church's strong support for [[labor union]]s. ===Church and state relations=== {{see also|Accommodationism}} The Christian right believes that separation of church and state is not explicit in the American Constitution, believing instead that such separation is a creation of what it claims are activist judges in the judicial system.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.patrobertson.com/Teaching/Teachingonfirstamendment.asp|title=The First Amendment|publisher=PatRobertson.com|author=Pat Robertson}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html |title=Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists |website=[[Library of Congress]] |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=ThinkExist.com Quotations |url=http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_purpose_of_separation_of_church_and_state_is/212643.html |title=James Madison quotes |publisher=Thinkexist.com |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref> In the United States, the Christian right often supports their claims by asserting that the country was "[[Christian nationalism|founded by Christians as a Christian Nation]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.888:|title=House Resolution 888 United States House of Representatives (Bill Text β 110th Congress (2007β2008) β THOMAS)|publisher=Library of Congress|date=December 18, 2007|access-date=January 25, 2008|archive-date=October 14, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081014160204/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.888:|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=A Nonbeliever |url=http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html |title=America is not founded upon Christianity but the Enlightenment |publisher=Freethought.mbdojo.com |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref> Members of the Christian right take the position that the [[Establishment Clause]] bars the federal government from establishing or sponsoring a state church (e.g., the Church of England), but does not prevent the government from acknowledging religion. The Christian right points out that the term "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, not from the Constitution itself.<ref>{{cite web |last=Watkins |first=Shanea |url=http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse |title=The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed ChurchβState Law, Policy, and Discourse |publisher=The Heritage Foundation |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.frc.org/familypolicylecture/policy-lecture--wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state |title=Wall of Separation Between Church and State: Myth, Reality, Results |publisher=Family Research Council |access-date=December 26, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Charles E. Steele |url=http://www.schoolprayerinamerica.info/1separationchurchstate.html |title=Separation of Church and State, Thomas Jefferson, and the First Amendment |publisher=Schoolprayerinamerica.info |date=January 18, 2009 |access-date=December 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120106072029/http://www.schoolprayerinamerica.info/1separationchurchstate.html |archive-date=January 6, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Furthermore, [[Alliance Defending Freedom]] (ADF) takes the view that the concept of "separation of church and state" has been used by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and its allies to inhibit public acknowledgment of Christianity and restrict the religious freedoms of Christians.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/ReligiousFreedom |title=Religious Freedom |publisher=Alliance Defense Fund |access-date=December 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111226183052/http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/ReligiousFreedom |archive-date=December 26, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Thus, Christian right leaders have argued that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit the display of religion in the public sphere. Leaders, therefore, believe that public institutions should be allowed, or even required, to display the [[Ten Commandments]]. This interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by the courts, which have found that such displays violate the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment|Establishment Clause]]. Public officials though are prohibited from using their authority in which the primary effect is "advancing or prohibiting religion", according to the Lemon Supreme Court test, and there cannot be an "excessive entanglement with religion" and the government. Some, such as Bryan Fischer of the [[American Family Association]], argue that the First Amendment, which specifically restricts Congress, applies only to the Congress and not the states. This position rejects the [[incorporation of the Bill of Rights]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147492060 |title=The First Amendment means what it says - RIGHTLYCONCERNED.COM |publisher=Action.afa.net |date=February 19, 2010 |access-date=December 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721203505/http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147492060 |archive-date=July 21, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Generally, the Christian right supports the presence of religious institutions within government and the public sphere, and advocates for fewer restrictions on government funding for religious charities and schools. Both Catholics and Protestants, according to a 2005 [[Gallup (company)|Gallup]] study, have been supportive of [[school prayer]] in public schools.<ref name="Wilson2007"/><ref name="GallupNewport2006">{{cite book|last1=Gallup|first1=Alec|last2=Newport|first2=Frank|title=The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2005|year=2006|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|language=en|isbn=9780742552586|page=318|quote=Related to their support of school prayer, most Americans also believe that religion should have a greater 'presence' in public schools. ... Protestants are most likely to favor school prayer (82%), followed closely by Catholics (75%).}}</ref> ===Economics=== Early American fundamentalists, such as [[John R. Rice (pastor)|John R. Rice]]<ref name="ah">"[Rice] melded politics and religion in a way that made it very clear what side of any political issue he believed God was on. God had been very clearly opposed to the New Deal "socialism" of Franklin Roosevelt, and God was equally opposed to the Great Society "socialism" of Lyndon Baines Johnson". Andrew Himes, ''The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family'' Chiara Press, 2011 {{ISBN|1453843752}}, (p.271).</ref><ref>Nathan Andrew Finn, ''The Development of Baptist Fundamentalism in the South, 1940β1980'' ProQuest, 2007 {{ISBN|0549371435}} (p.204).</ref> often favored ''[[laissez-faire]]'' economics and were outspoken critics of the [[New Deal]] and later the [[Great Society]].<ref name="ah" /> The contemporary Christian right supports economic conservative policies such as tax cuts and social conservative policies such as child tax credits.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.cc.org/issues.cfm |title=Christian Coalition of America |access-date=March 17, 2008 |archive-date=October 9, 2004 |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20041009202641/http://cc.org/issues.cfm |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://cc.org/issues.cfm|archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20041009202641/http://cc.org/issues.cfm|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 9, 2004|title=Christian Coalition of America|website=webarchive.loc.gov|access-date=March 4, 2019}}</ref> ===Middle East=== {{See also|Christian Zionism}} Many evangelical Protestant supporters of the religious right have strongly supported the state of [[Israel]] in recent decades, encouraging support for Israel within the United States government.<ref>Stephen Spector, ''Evangelicals and Israel: the story of American Christian Zionism'' (2008) pp 23β49</ref> Some of them have linked Israel to [[Bible prophecy|Biblical prophesies]]; for example, Ed McAteer, founder of the Moral Majority, said "I believe that we are seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and wonderfully and, without exaggerating, makes me breathless."<ref>Jan G. Linn, ''What's Wrong With The Christian Right'' (2004) p 27</ref> This belief, an example of [[dispensationalism]], arises from the idea that the establishment of Israel is a prerequisite for the [[Second Coming]] of Jesus, because it represents the Biblically prophesied [[Gathering of Israel]]. A 2017 poll indicates that this belief is held by 80% of evangelicals, and that half of evangelicals consider it an important cause of their support for the state of Israel.<ref>Bump, Philip. May 14, 2017. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/ "Half of evangelicals support Israel because they believe it is important for fulfilling end-times prophecy"]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> During the [[Lebanese Civil War]] that started in 1975 and ended in 1990, many Christian parties endorsed the right's political viewpoints such as the Christian Lebanese phalanges which is known as the [[Kataeb Party]], and later, the right's political viewpoints were also endorsed by the Lebanese Armed Forces because their power and influence were threatened by the growing power and influence of the more radical [[Islamism|Islamist]] and [[Left-wing politics|left-wing]] movements, such as the [[Shiite]] [[Amal Movement]], and the [[Progressive Socialist Party]] in the 1980s. ===Abortion and contraception=== {{See also|Bioethics|Consistent life ethic}} Historically, large percentages of American [[Catholic Church in the United States|Catholics]] and [[Evangelicalism|Evangelical Protestants]] oppose and have opposed abortion,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Religious Landscape Study |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/ |access-date=June 27, 2022 |website=Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project |language=en-US}}</ref> believing that life begins at [[Human fertilization|conception]] and that abortion is murder. Therefore, those in the movement have worked toward the overturning of ''[[Roe v. Wade]] (1973)'', and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' (1992). The Christian right has also supported incremental steps to make abortion less available. Such efforts include bans on [[late-term abortion]] (including [[intact dilation and extraction]]),<ref>[http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003] 108th United States Congress (1st session)</ref> prohibitions against Medicaid funding and other public funding for elective abortions, removal of taxpayer funding for [[Planned Parenthood]] and other organizations that provide abortion services, legislation requiring [[parental consent]] or notification for abortions performed on [[minor (law)|minors]],<ref>[http://articles.dailypress.com/1994-04-09/news/9404090085_1_parental-notification-notification-bill-abortion Allen Wants Parents Notified β Daily Press] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130511030423/http://articles.dailypress.com/1994-04-09/news/9404090085_1_parental-notification-notification-bill-abortion |date=May 11, 2013 }}. Articles.dailypress.com (April 9, 1994). Retrieved on August 24, 2013.</ref> legal protections for unborn victims of violence, [[BAIPA|legal protections for infants born alive]] following failed abortions, and bans on [[abortifacient]] medications. The Christian right element in the Reagan coalition strongly supported him in 1980, in the belief that he would appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn ''Roe v. Wade''. They were astonished and dismayed when his first appointment was [[Sandra Day O'Connor]], whom they feared would tolerate abortion. They worked hard to defeat her confirmation but failed.<ref>Prudence Flowers, "'A Prolife Disaster': The Reagan Administration and the Nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor". ''Journal of Contemporary History'' 53.2 (2018): 391β414</ref> The Christian right contends that morning-after pills such as [[Plan B (drug)|Plan B]] and [[Ulipristal acetate|Ella]] are possible abortifacients, able to interfere with a [[fertilized egg]]'s [[implantation (human embryo)|implantation]] in the [[uterine wall]].<ref name="abortifacients">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html|title=Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded|last=Belluck|first=Pam|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 6, 2012}}</ref> The labeling mandated by the U.S. [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) for Plan B and Ella state that they may interfere with implantation, but according to a June 2012, ''The New York Times'' article, many scientists believe that they work only by interfering with [[ovulation]] and are arguing to have the implantation language removed from product labels. The Christian right maintains that the chemical properties of morning-after pills make them abortifacients and that the politics of abortion is influencing scientific judgments. Jonathan Imbody of the [[Christian Medical Association]] says he questions "whether ideological considerations are driving these decisions."<ref name="abortifacients"/> Specifically, many Catholic members, as well as some conservative Protestant members, of the Christian right have campaigned against contraception altogether.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rewire.news/article/2014/01/06/catholic-groups-trying-to-eliminate-coverage-of-contraception-no-matter-who-pays/|title=Catholic Groups Trying to Eliminate Coverage of Contraception No Matter Who Pays: The latest court challenges to the birth control benefit show how much the fight against the contraception mandate is really about the Christian right trying to establish an employer's "right" to control your private sex life.|last=Marcotte|first=Amanda|date=January 6, 2014|publisher=[[Rewire (website)|Rewire]]|language=en|access-date=February 2, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Contra-Contraception|last=Shorto|first=Russell|date=May 7, 2006|work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> {{See also|Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization}} [[File:Supreme Court of the United States - Roberts Court 2020.jpg|thumb|The [[Roberts Court]] in 2020. This court oversaw the landmark United States Supreme Court case ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' in 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%E2%80%99s_Health_Organization |access-date=June 27, 2022 |website=Ballotpedia |language=en}}</ref>]] In May 2022, ''[[Politico]]'' published a leaked draft majority opinion, written by Justice [[Samuel Alito]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 |access-date=June 27, 2022 |website=POLITICO |date=May 2, 2022 |language=en}}</ref> It would overturn ''Roe'' and ''Casey'' by nullifying the specific privacy rights in question, eliminating federal involvement, and leaving the issue to be determined by the states. Through a statement made by the [[Chief Justice of the United States]], [[John Roberts]], the Court confirmed the document's authenticity but said that it was not a final decision or the Justice's final decision, which was expected by June or July. The decision was issued on June 24, 2022, ruling 6β3 to reverse the lower court rulings; a more narrow 5β4 ruling overturned ''Roe'' and ''Casey''. The majority opinion stated that abortion was not a [[Constitutional right in the United States|constitutional right]], and that states should have discretion in regulating abortion. The majority opinion, written by Alito, was substantially similar to the leaked draft. Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the judgment upholding the Mississippi law but did not join the majority in the opinion to overturn ''Roe'' and ''Casey''. ===Biotechnology=== Due to the Christian right's views regarding ethics and to an extent due to negative views of [[eugenics]] common to most ideologies in North America, it has worked for the regulation and restriction of certain applications of [[biotechnology]]. In particular, the Christian right opposes therapeutic and reproductive [[human cloning]], championing a 2005 United Nations ban on the practice, and human embryonic [[stem cell research]], which involves the extraction of one or more cells from a human embryo.<ref name="embryonic stem cells">{{cite news|url=http://www.necn.com/06/14/12/U-M-6-new-stem-cell-lines-available-for-/landing_scitech.html?&apID=22fa19f8d6a8466184e77507936d67b2|title=U-M: 6 new stem cell lines available for research|agency=Associated Press|date=June 14, 2012}}{{Dead link|date=December 2021 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The Christian right supports research with [[adult stem cell]]s, [[amniotic stem cell]]s, and [[induced pluripotent stem cell]]s which do not use cells from human embryos, as they view the harvesting of biological material from an embryo lacking the ability to give permission as an assault on a living being. The Christian right also opposes [[euthanasia]], and, in one highly publicized case, took an active role in seeking governmental intervention to prevent [[Terri Schiavo]] from being deprived of nutrition and [[Dehydration|hydration]]. ===Opposition to drugs=== {{Further|Woman's Christian Temperance Union|List of anti-cannabis organizations}} The Christian right has historically supported the [[temperance movement]], thus supporting causes such as maintaining [[blue laws|Sunday blue laws]], adding [[alcohol packaging warning messages]] to bottles and limiting alcohol advertising.<ref name="RozellGreenJelenWilcox2003">{{cite book |last1=Rozell |first1=Mark J. |last2=Green |first2=John Clifford |last3=Jelen |first3=Ted G. |last4=Rozell |first4=Mark J. |last5=Wilcox |first5=Clyde |title=The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium |date=2003 |publisher=[[Georgetown University Press]] |isbn=978-0-87840-393-6 |page=258 |language=en|quote=The temperance movement is the clearly identifiable origin of the contemporary Christian Right in Maine. The Maine Christian Civic League (MCCL)βthe principal Christian Right group in the state began as a temperance organization in}}</ref> It has advocated for the [[prohibition of drugs]] and has opposed efforts to legalize marijuana.<ref name="Rainey2013">{{cite web |last1=Rainey |first1=Clint |title=Is the Religious Right's Powerful Opposition to Drugs Finally Fading? |url=https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/colorado-drug-legalization-and-evangelicals-why-didnt-religious-right-fight-marijuana-amendment.html |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |access-date=October 6, 2020 |language=en |date=January 4, 2013}}</ref> ===Sex and sexuality=== {{Main|Christianity and homosexuality|Christianity and transgender people|Same-sex marriage in the United States}} {{Further|Discrimination in the United States|LGBT rights opposition|Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States}} The modern roots of the Christian right's views on sexual matters were evident in the years 1950sβ1960s, a period in which many [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] [[Christianity in the United States|Christians in the United States]] viewed sexual promiscuity as not only excessive, but in fact as a threat to their ideal vision of the country.<ref name="Herman">{{cite book|last=Herman|first=Didi|url=https://archive.org/details/antigayagendaort00herm|title=The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=1997|isbn=978-0-226-32764-8|location=Chicago, IL|url-access=registration|access-date=September 20, 2012}}</ref>{{rp|30}} Beginning in the 1970s, conservative Christian protests against promiscuity began to surface, largely as a reaction to the "[[Sexual revolution in 1960s United States|permissive Sixties]]" and changes in sexual behavior confirmed by ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and the [[LGBT rights movement]]. The Christian right proceeded to make sexuality issues a priority political cause.<ref name=Herman />{{rp|28}} [[Anita Bryant]] organized [[Save Our Children]], a widespread campaign to oppose legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of [[sexual orientation]] in [[Miami-Dade County, Florida]].<ref name="Fetner 2001">{{cite journal |author-last=Fetner |author-first=Tina |date=August 2001 |title=Working Anita Bryant: The Impact of Christian Anti-Gay Activism on Lesbian and Gay Movement Claims |journal=[[Social Problems]] |volume=48 |issue=3 |location=[[Oxford]] and [[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] on behalf of the [[Society for the Study of Social Problems]] |pages=411β428 |doi=10.1525/sp.2001.48.3.411 |hdl=11375/21175 |issn=1533-8533 |s2cid=144876642|hdl-access=free }}</ref> The group argued that gay people were "[[Homosexual recruitment|recruiting]]" or "[[Homosexuality and pedophilia|molesting children]]" in order to make them gay.<ref name="Fetner 2001"/> Bryant infamously claimed that "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children," and also claimed that "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters."<ref name="At Any Cost">{{cite book|title= At Any Cost|url= https://archive.org/details/atanycost0000brya|url-access= registration|last= Bryant|first=Anita |author2=Green, Bob |year= 1978|publisher= Fleming H. Revell |location= Grand Rapids, Michigan, US|isbn= 9780800709402}}</ref> The Bryant campaign achieved success in repealing some city anti-discrimination laws, and proposed other citizen initiatives such as a [[Briggs Initiative|failed California ballot question]] designed to ban gay people or those who supported LGBT rights from holding public teaching jobs. Bryant's campaign attracted widespread opposition and [[boycott]]s which put her out of business and destroyed her reputation. From the late 1970s onwards, some [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] [[Christianity in the United States|Christian organizations]] such as the [[Christian Broadcasting Network]], [[Focus on the Family]], [[Concerned Women for America]], the [[American Family Association]], and the [[Christian Coalition of America]], along with right-wing Christian hate groups such as the [[Westboro Baptist Church]], have been outspoken against LGBT rights.<ref name="Gannon 1981"/><ref name="Miller 2014"/><ref name="Durham 2000"/><ref name="McKeegan 1993"/> Late in 1979, a [[Fourth Great Awakening|new religious revival]] among conservative [[Evangelicalism in the United States|Evangelical Protestants]] and [[Catholic Church in the United States|Roman Catholics]] ushered in the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican coalition]] politically aligned with the Christian right that would reign in the United States between the years 1970s and 1980s, becoming another obstacle for the progress of the [[LGBTQ rights movement]].<ref name="Gannon 1981"/><ref name="Miller 2014"/><ref name="Durham 2000"/><ref name="McKeegan 1993"/> During the [[HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States|HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1980s]], LGBTQ communities were further [[Stigmatization|stigmatized]] as they became the focus of [[mass hysteria]], suffered [[Social isolation|isolation]] and [[Social exclusion|marginalization]], and were targeted with [[Violence against LGBT people|extreme acts of violence]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Westengard |first=Laura |year=2019 |chapter=Monstrosity: Melancholia, Cannibalism, and HIV/AIDS |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=b5unDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA99 |title=Gothic Queer Culture: Marginalized Communities and the Ghosts of Insidious Trauma |location=[[Lincoln, Nebraska]] |publisher=[[University of Nebraska Press]] |pages=99β103 |isbn=978-1-4962-0204-8 |lccn=2018057900}}</ref> The Christian right champions itself as the "self-appointed conscience of American society". During the 1980s, the movement was largely dismissed by political pundits and mainstream religious leaders as "a collection of buffoonish has-beens". Later, it re-emerged, better organized and more focused, taking firm positions against abortion, pornography, sexual deviancy, and extreme feminism.<ref name=Kaplan>{{cite journal|last=Kaplan|first=George R.|title=Shotgun Wedding: Notes on Public Education's Encounter with the New Christian Right|journal=Phi Delta Kappan|date=May 1994|volume=75|issue=9}}</ref><ref name=Green>{{cite book|last=Green|first=Hohn|title=THE VALUES CAMPAIGN? The Christian Right and the 2004 Elections|year=2006|publisher=Georgetown University Press|location=Washington, D.C.|isbn=978-1589011083|editor=Green, John C. |editor2=Rozell, Mark J. |editor3=Wilcox, Clyde<!--|access-date=September 20, 2012-->}}</ref>{{rp|4}} Beginning around the [[presidency of Donald Trump]], Christian conservatives have largely refrained from engaging in debates about sexual morality.<ref>Douthat, Ross, et al. [http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/gabfest/2018/02/the_florida_shooting_white_house_job_shake_ups_and_porn_on_the_political.html "The 'Let's Just Ban Everything' Edition"] ''Political Gabfest''. Slate, February 15, 2018. ''Slate''. Start listening at 37:00.</ref> Influential Christian right organizations at the forefront of the anti-gay rights movement in the United States include Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the [[Family Research Institute]].<ref name=Herman />{{rp|15β16}} An important stratagem in Christian right anti-gay politics is in its rejection of "the edicts of a Big Brother" state, allowing it to profit from "a general feeling of discontent and demoralization with government". As a result, the Christian right has endorsed smaller government, restricting its ability to arbitrate in disputes regarding values and traditions. In this context, gay rights laws have come to symbolize the government's allegedly unconstitutional "[interference] with individual freedom".<ref name=Herman />{{rp|170β171}} The central tenets of Focus on the Family and similar organizations, such as the Family Research Council, emphasise issues such as abortion and the necessity of gender roles. A number of organizations, including the New Christian Right, "have in various ways rejected liberal America in favor of the regulation of pornography, anti-abortion legislation, the criminalization of homosexuality, and the virtues of faithfulness and loyalty in sexual partnerships", according to sociologist [[Bryan S. Turner]].<ref name=Petersen>{{cite journal |author-last=Petersen |author-first=David L. |date=Spring 2005 |title=Genesis and Family Values |journal=[[Journal of Biblical Literature]] |publisher=[[Society of Biblical Literature]] |volume=124 |issue=1 |pages=5β23 |doi=10.2307/30040988 |issn=0021-9231 |jstor=30040988 |s2cid=141110842}}</ref> A large number of the Christian right view [[same-sex marriage]] as a central issue in the culture wars, more so than other gay rights issues and even more significantly than abortion.<ref name=Green />{{rp|57}}{{dubious|date=July 2013}} The legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004 changed the Christian right, causing it to put its opposition to these marriages above most other issues. It also created previously unknown interracial and ecumenical coalitions, and stimulated new electoral activity in pastors and congregations.<ref name=Green />{{rp|58}} Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page